Modelling heterogeneity in response behaviour towards a sequence of discrete choice questions: a latent class approach

McNair, Ben J. and Hensher, David A. and Bennett, Jeff (2010): Modelling heterogeneity in response behaviour towards a sequence of discrete choice questions: a latent class approach.

Abstract

There is a growing body of evidence in the non-market valuation literature suggesting that responses to a sequence of discrete choice questions tend to violate the assumptions typically made by analysts regarding independence of responses and stability of preferences. Heuristics such as value learning and strategic misrepresentation have been offered as explanations for these results. While a few studies have tested these heuristics as competing hypotheses, none have investigated the possibility that each explains the response behaviour of a subgroup of the population. In this paper, we make a contribution towards addressing this research gap by presenting an equality-constrained latent class model designed to estimate the proportion of respondents employing each of the proposed heuristics. We demonstrate the model on binary and multinomial choice data sources and find three distinct types of response behaviour. The results suggest that accounting for heterogeneity in response behaviour may be a better way forward than attempting to identify a single heuristic to explain the behaviour of all respondents.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Choice experiment; latent class; ordering effects; strategic response; willingness-to-pay
• Subjects: Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q51 - Valuation of Environmental Effects; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C2 - Single Equation Models ; Single Variables > C25 - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models ; Discrete Regressors ; Proportions ; Probabilities

References

Ariely D, Loewenstein D and Prelec D (2003) 'Coherent arbitrariness': stable demand curves without stable preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics 118(1): 73-105

Bateman I J, Burgess D, Hutchinson W G and Matthews D I (2008a) Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 55: 127-141

Bateman I J, Carson R T, Day B, Dupont D, Louviere J J, Morimoto S, Scarpa R et al (2008b) Choice set awareness and ordering effects in discrete choice experiments. CSERGE Working Paper EDM 08-01

Beenstock M, Goldin E and Haitovsky Y (1998) Response bias in conjoint analysis of power outages. Energy Economics 20: 135-156

Bennett J and Blamey R (2001) The Choice Modeling Approach to Environmental Valuation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK

Boyle K J, Bishop R C and Welsh M P (1985) Starting Point Bias in Contingent Valuation Bidding Games. Land Economics 61: 188-194

Bradley M and Daly A (1994) Use of the logit scaling approach to test for rank-order and fatigue effects in stated preference data. Transportation 21(2): 167-184

Braga J and Starmer C (2005) Preference anomolies, preference elicitation and the discovered preference hypothesis. Environmental and Resource Economics 32: 55-89

Cameron T A and Quiggin J (1994) Estimation using contingent valuation data from a "dichotomous choice with follow-up" questionnaire. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 27: 218-234

Carlsson F and Martinsson P (2008a) Does it matter when a power outage occurs? A choice experiment study on the WTP to avoid power outages. Energy Economics 30(3): 1232-1245

Carlsson F and Martinsson P (2008b) How much is too much? An investigation of the effect of the number of choice sets, starting point and the choice of bid vectors in choice experiments. Environmental and Resource Economics 40(2)

Carson K S, Chilton S M and Hutchinson W G (2009) Necessary conditions for demand revelation in double referenda. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 57(2): 219-225

Carson R T and Groves T (2007) Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics 37: 181-210

Carson R T, Groves T and List J (2006) Probabilistic influence and supplemental benefits: a field test of the two key assumptions behind using stated preferences. unpublished manuscript,

Caussade S, Ortuzar J d D, Rizzi L I and Hensher D A (2005) Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates. Transportation Research Part B 39: 621-640

Day B, Bateman I J, Carson R T, Dupont D, Louviere J J, Morimoto S, Scarpa R et al (2009) Task Independence in Stated Preference Studies: A Test of Order Effect Explanations. CSERGE Working Paper EDM 09-14,

Day B and Pinto J L (2010) Ordering anomalies in choice experiments. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2010.03.001

DeShazo J R (2002) Designing transactions without framing effects in iterative question formats. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43: 360-385

Hanemann W M, Loomis J and Kanninen B (1991) Statistical efficiency of double bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73: 1255-1263

Hensher D A and Collins A T (2010) Interrogation of Responses to Stated Choice Experiments: Is there sense in what respondents tell us? Submitted to Journal of Choice Modelling

Hensher D A and Greene W H (2009) Non-attendance and dual processing of common-metric attributes in choice analysis: a latent class specification Empirical Economics (in press)

Hensher D A and Truong T P (1985) Valuation of Travel Time Savings: A Direct Experimental Approach. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 19(3): 237-261

Herriges J A and Shogren J F (1996) Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30: 112-131

Holmes T and Boyle K J (2005) Dynamic learning and context-dependence in sequential, attribute-based stated-preference valuation questions. Land Economics 81: 114-126

Ladenburg J and Olsen S B (2008) Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: Evidence from an empirical study. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 56: 275-285

Louviere J J and Hensher D A (1983) Using Discrete Choice Models with Experimental Design Data to Forecast Consumer Demand for a Unique Cultural Event. Journal of Consumer Research 10(December): 348-361

McFadden D (1974) Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behaviour. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in Econometrics, Academic Press, New York

McNair B J, Bennett J and Hensher D A (2010a) A comparison of responses to single and repeated discrete choice questions. Occasional Paper #14, Crawford School of Economics and Government, The Australian National University,

McNair B J, Bennett J and Hensher D A (2010b) Households' willingness to pay for undergrounding electricity and telecommunications wires. Occasional Paper #15, Crawford School of Economics and Government, The Australian National University,

NERA Economic Consulting and ACNielsen (2003) Willingness to pay research study. A report for ACTEW Corporation and ActewAGL, September

Plott C R (1996) Rational individual behavior in markets and social choice processes: the discovered preference hypothesis. In: Arrow K, Colombatto E, Perleman M and Schmidt C (ed) Rational foundations of economic behavior, Macmillan, London

Samuelson P A (1954) The pure theory of public expenditure. Review of Economics and Statistics 36: 387-389

Scarpa R, Gilbride T J, Campbell D and Hensher D A (2009) Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation. European Review of Agricultural Economics 36(2): 151-174

Scarpa R and Rose J (2008) Design Efficiency for Non-Market Valuation with Choice Modelling: How to Measure it, What to Report and Why. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 52(3): 253-282