Effects of alternative elicitation formats in discrete choice experiments*. (31st January 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Scheufele, Gabriela; Bennett, Jeff
• Is Part Of: Australian journal of agricultural and resource economics. Volume 57:Number 2(2013:Apr.)
• Page Start: 214
• Page End: 233
• Publication Date: 2013-01-31
• Subjects: Agriculture -- Economic aspects -- Periodicals; Agriculture -- Environmental aspects -- Periodicals; Natural resources -- Periodicals; Agriculture -- Economic aspects -- Australia -- Periodicals; Natural resources -- Australia -- Periodicals; 338.1
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8489.2012.00612.x
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1364-985X

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" xml:lang="en"> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <p>An elicitation format prevalently applied in discrete choice experiments (DCE) is to offer each respondent a sequence of choice tasks containing more than two choice options. However, empirical evidence indicates that repeated choice tasks influence choice outcomes through order effects. The study reported in this article employs a split sample approach based on field surveys to expand the research on effects of repeated‐binary DCE elicitation formats. A single‐binary elicitation format is used as the baseline. Our results indicate that choice outcomes may vary across the single‐binary and repeated‐binary elicitation formats. The choice between the two elicitation formats may imply a trade‐off between decreased choice precision in the single‐binary and order effects that may be explained by <italic>strategic misrepresentation of preferences</italic>, <italic>cost uncertainty effects</italic> and <italic>reference effects</italic> in the repeated‐binary elicitation format.</p> </abstract>