IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/agrerw/v34y2005i02p238-252_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysis of Cardinal and Ordinal Assumptions in Conjoint Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Harrison, R. Wes
  • Gillespie, Jeffrey
  • Fields, Deacue

Abstract

Of twenty-three agricultural economics conjoint analyses conducted between 1990 and 2001, seventeen used interval-rating scales, with estimation procedures varying widely. This study tests cardinality assumptions in conjoint analysis when interval-rating scales are used, and tests whether the ordered probit or two-limit tobit model is the most valid. Results indicate that cardinality assumptions are invalid, but estimates of the underlying utility scale for the two models do not differ. Thus, while the ordered probit model is theoretically more appealing, the two-limit tobit model may be more useful in practice, especially in cases with limited degrees of freedom, such as with individual-level conjoint models.

Suggested Citation

  • Harrison, R. Wes & Gillespie, Jeffrey & Fields, Deacue, 2005. "Analysis of Cardinal and Ordinal Assumptions in Conjoint Analysis," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(2), pages 238-252, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:agrerw:v:34:y:2005:i:02:p:238-252_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S106828050000839X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harrison, R. Wes & Ozayan, Aylin & Meyers, Samuel P., 1998. "A Conjoint Analysis Of New Food Products Processed From Underutilized Small Crawfish," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 30(2), pages 1-9, December.
    2. Halbrendt, Catherine K. & Wirth, Ferdinand F. & Vaughn, Gerald F., 1991. "Conjoint Analysis Of The Mid-Atlantic Food-Fish Market For Farm-Raised Hybrid Striped Bass," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 23(1), pages 1-9, July.
    3. Stevens, Thomas H. & Barrett, Christopher B. & Willis, Cleve E., 1997. "Conjoint Analysis Of Groundwater Protection Programs," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 1-8, October.
    4. Holland, Daniel & Wessells, Cathy R., 1998. "Predicting Consumer Preferences for Fresh Salmon: The Influence of Safety Inspection and Production Method Attributes," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 1-14, April.
    5. George J. Stigler, 1950. "The Development of Utility Theory. II," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(5), pages 373-373.
    6. Jill E. Hobbs, 1996. "Transaction costs and slaughter cattle procurement: Processors' selection of supply channels," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(6), pages 509-523.
    7. Baker, Gregory A. & Crosbie, Peter J., 1993. "Measuring Food Safety Preferences: Identifying Consumer Segments," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 18(2), pages 1-11, December.
    8. Roe, Brian & Boyle, Kevin J. & Teisl, Mario F., 1996. "Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates of Compensating Variation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 145-159, September.
    9. Fernando San Miguel & Mandy Ryan & Emma McIntosh, 2000. "Applying conjoint analysis in economic evaluations: an application to menorrhagia," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(7), pages 823-833.
    10. Biing-Hwan Lin & Steven Payson & Jane Wertz, 1996. "Opinions of professional buyers toward organic produce: A case study of mid-Atlantic market for fresh tomatoes," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 89-97.
    11. Yoo, Dong-il & Ohta, Hiroshi, 1995. "Optimal pricing and product-planning for new multiattribute products based on conjoint analysis," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(2-3), pages 245-253, March.
    12. Swallow, Stephen K. & Opaluch, James J. & Weaver, Thomas F., 2001. "Strength-of-Preference Indicators and an Ordered-Response Model for Ordinarily Dichotomous, Discrete Choice Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 70-93, January.
    13. Harrison, R. Wes & Stringer, Timothy & Prinyawiwatkul, Witoon, 2002. "An Analysis of Consumer Preferences for Value-Added Seafood Products Derived from Crawfish," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 31(2), pages 1-14, October.
    14. van Praag, Bernard M. S., 1991. "Ordinal and cardinal utility : An integration of the two dimensions of the welfare concept," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1-2), pages 69-89, October.
    15. Gan, Christopher & Luzar, E. Jane, 1993. "A Conjoint Analysis of Waterfowl Hunting in Louisiana," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 36-45, December.
    16. Fisher, Irving, 1918. "Is "Utility" the Most Suitable Term for the Concept It is Used to Denote?," History of Economic Thought Articles, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, vol. 8, pages 335-337.
    17. Jeffrey Gillespie & Gary Taylor & Alvin Schupp & Ferdinand Wirth, 1998. "Opinions of professional buyers toward a new, alternative red meat: Ostrich," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 247-256.
    18. Barry E. Prentice & Dave Benell, 1992. "Determinants of Empty Returns by U.S. Refrigerated Trucks: Conjoint Analysis Approach," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 40(1), pages 109-127, March.
    19. Gary Crow, 1997. "Estimating the Values of Cattle Characteristics Using an Ordered Probit Model," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(2), pages 463-476.
    20. Kevin J. Boyle & Thomas P. Holmes & Mario F. Teisl & Brian Roe, 2001. "A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(2), pages 441-454.
    21. Stevens, Thomas H. & Barrett, Christopher & Willis, Cleve E., 1997. "Conjoint Analysis of Groundwater Protection Programs," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(2), pages 229-236, October.
    22. Gan, Christopher E.C. & Luzar, E. Jane, 1993. "A Conjoint Analysis Of Waterfowl Hunting In Louisiana," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 25(2), pages 1-10, December.
    23. Gineo, Wayne M., 1990. "A Conjoint/Logit Analysis Of Nursery Stock Purchases," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 19(1), pages 1-10, April.
    24. Halbrendt, C.K. & Wirth, F.F. & Vaughn, G.F., 1991. "Conjoint Analysis of the Mid-Atlantic Food-Fish Market for Farm-Raised Hybrid Striped Bass," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(1), pages 155-163, July.
    25. MacKenzie, John, 1990. "Conjoint Analysis Of Deer Hunting," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 19(2), pages 1-9, October.
    26. Gilbert Sylvia & Sherry L. Larkin, 1995. "Firm-level Intermediate Demand for Pacific Whiting Products: A Multi-attribute, Multi-sector Analysis," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 43(3), pages 501-518, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aguilar, Francisco X. & Daniel, Marissa “Jo” & Cai, Zhen, 2014. "Family-forest Owners’ Willingness to Harvest Sawlogs and Woody Biomass: The Effect of Price on Social Availability," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 0, pages 1-21.
    2. Aguilar, Francisco X. & Vlosky, Richard P., 2007. "Consumer willingness to pay price premiums for environmentally certified wood products in the U.S," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(8), pages 1100-1112, May.
    3. Erik Haugom & Iveta Malasevska & Gudbrand Lien, 2021. "Optimal pricing of alpine ski passes in the case of crowdedness and reduced skiing capacity," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 61(1), pages 469-487, July.
    4. Lewis, Darius & Gillespie, Jeffrey M., 2007. "Crawfish Peeler Preferences for the Adoption of a Potential Crawfish Peeling Machine: A Conjoint Analysis," 2007 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2007, Mobile, Alabama 34969, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Harrison, R. Wes & Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Fields, Deacue, 2001. "Theoretical And Empirical Considerations Of Eliciting Preferences And Model Estimation In Conjoint Analysis," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20680, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Harrison, R. Wes & Mclennon, Everald, 2004. "Analysis of Consumer Preferences for Biotech Labeling Formats," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(1), pages 1-13, April.
    3. Harrison, R. Wes & Sambidi, Pramod R., 2004. "A Conjoint Analysis of the U.S. Broiler Complex Location Decision," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(3), pages 639-655, December.
    4. Sánchez, M. & Gil, José M., 1998. "Comparación de tres métodos de estimación del análisis conjunto: diferencias en las preferencias en el consumo de vino y en la segmentación del mercado," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 10, pages 131-146, Diciembre.
    5. Haefele, Michelle A. & Loomis, John B., 1999. "A Comparison Of Conjoint Ratings And Rankings: An Application For Passive Use Values Of Forest Health," 1999 Annual Meeting, July 11-14, 1999, Fargo, ND 35729, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    6. Fields, Deacue & Gillespie, Jeffrey M., 2003. "Beef Producer Preferences And Purchase Decisions For Livestock Revenue Insurance Products," 2003 Annual Meeting, February 1-5, 2003, Mobile, Alabama 35089, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    7. Rodolfo Bernabéu & Margarita Brugarolas & Laura Martínez-Carrasco & Roberto Nieto-Villegas & Adrián Rabadán, 2023. "The Price of Organic Foods as a Limiting Factor of the European Green Deal: The Case of Tomatoes in Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-15, February.
    8. Yiling Deng & Ian A. Munn & Haibo Yao, 2021. "Attributes‐based conjoint analysis of landowner preferences for standing timber insurance," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 24(4), pages 421-444, December.
    9. Jeffrey Gillespie & Gary Taylor & Alvin Schupp & Ferdinand Wirth, 1998. "Opinions of professional buyers toward a new, alternative red meat: Ostrich," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 247-256.
    10. Swallow, Stephen K. & Opaluch, James J. & Weaver, Thomas F., 2001. "Strength-of-Preference Indicators and an Ordered-Response Model for Ordinarily Dichotomous, Discrete Choice Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 70-93, January.
    11. Mingie, James C. & Poudyal, Neelam C. & Bowker, J.M. & Mengak, Michael T. & Siry, Jacek P., 2017. "Big game hunter preferences for hunting club attributes: A choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 98-106.
    12. Schupp, Alvin R. & Gillespie, Jeffrey M. & Prinyawiwatkul, Witoon & O'Neil, Carol E., 2003. "Consumer-Preferred Attributes of a Fresh Ground Beef and Turkey Product: A Conjoint Analysis," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 34(2), pages 1-7, July.
    13. Chunhua Wang & Changdong Zhang & Yong Wang, 2020. "Environmental satisfaction among residents in Chinese cities," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 59(5), pages 2283-2301, November.
    14. Stevens, T. H. & Belkner, R. & Dennis, D. & Kittredge, D. & Willis, C., 2000. "Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 63-74, January.
    15. Milena Pavlova & Wim Groot & Godefridus Merode, 2005. "An Application of Rating Conjoint Analysis to Study the Importance of Quality-, Access- and Price-attributes to Health Care Consumers," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 267-286, September.
    16. Oliver Froer, 2003. "Using Stated Preference Methods for Biodiversity Valuation. A critical analysis," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 217/2003, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    17. Holland, Daniel & Wessells, Cathy R., 1998. "Predicting Consumer Preferences for Fresh Salmon: The Influence of Safety Inspection and Production Method Attributes," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 1-14, April.
    18. John C. Whitehead & George Van Houtven, "undated". "Methods for Valuing the Benefits of the Safe Drinking Water Act: Review and Assessment," Working Papers 9705, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    19. Edward Morey & Kathleen Greer Rossmann, 2003. "Using Stated-Preference Questions to Investigate Variations in Willingness to Pay for Preserving Marble Monuments: Classic Heterogeneity, Random Parameters, and Mixture Models," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 215-229, November.
    20. Boever, Brian P. & Harrison, R. Wes & Tiersch, Terrence R., 2006. "Willingness-to-Pay for Genetic Attributes in Aquaculture Industries," 2006 Annual Meeting, February 5-8, 2006, Orlando, Florida 35337, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:agrerw:v:34:y:2005:i:02:p:238-252_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/age .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.