IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-10-00219.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing the cognitive burden of two choice modeling valuation variants. The between and within sample approaches

Author

Listed:
  • Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu

    (University of Rouen)

  • Pere Riera

    (Autonomous University of Barcelona)

  • Raul Brey

    (Pablo de Olavide University)

Abstract

Scores are commonly used in environmental valuation exercises. The two main procedures when testing for score differences are the within sample and the between sample approaches. Their conclusions do not always coincide. With a case study involving scores on difficulty of responding to two choice modeling variants –contingent ranking and contingent grouping–, the paper shows the strength of the within sample approach when relying on the coherent arbitrariness principle. Results suggest that the grouping is significantly less difficult to complete than the ranking task. The validity of these results is enhanced by the fact that they are independent of the exercise order, which is tested by randomizing the sequence order in which respondents face the two methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Pere Riera & Raul Brey, 2010. "Testing the cognitive burden of two choice modeling valuation variants. The between and within sample approaches," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 30(2), pages 1384-1391.
    • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-10-00219
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/Pubs/EB/2010/Volume30/EB-10-V30-I2-P128.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Flachaire, Emmanuel & Hollard, Guillaume, 2007. "Starting point bias and respondent uncertainty in dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 183-194, September.
    2. I J Bateman & I H Langford, 1997. "Budget-Constraint, Temporal, and Question-Ordering Effects in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 29(7), pages 1215-1228, July.
    3. Brey, Raul & Bergland, Olvar & Riera, Pere, 2011. "A contingent grouping approach for stated preferences," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 745-755, September.
    4. Dan Ariely & George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 2003. ""Coherent Arbitrariness": Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(1), pages 73-106.
    5. John Mackenzie, 1993. "A Comparison of Contingent Preference Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(3), pages 593-603.
    6. Nick Hanley & Bengt Kriström & Jason F. Shogren, 2009. "Coherent Arbitrariness: On Value Uncertainty for Environmental Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(1), pages 41-50.
    7. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, September.
    8. Alejandro Caparrós & José L. Oviedo & Pablo Campos, 2008. "Would You Choose Your Preferred Option? Comparing Choice and Recoded Ranking Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(3), pages 843-855.
    9. Whynes, David K. & Frew, Emma J. & Philips, Zoe N. & Covey, Judith & Smith, Richard D., 2007. "On the numerical forms of contingent valuation responses," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 462-476, August.
    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. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Romain Craste & Bengt Kriström & Pere Riera, 2014. "Non-market valuation in France: An overview of the research activity," Working Papers hal-01087365, HAL.

    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. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & François-Charles Wolff & Jason Shogren & Pascal Gastineau, 2017. "Interval bidding in a distribution elicitation format," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(51), pages 5200-5211, November.
    2. Marit Kragt, 2013. "The Effects of Changing Cost Vectors on Choices and Scale Heterogeneity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(2), pages 201-221, February.
    3. Banerjee, Prasenjit & Shogren, Jason F., 2014. "Bidding behavior given point and interval values in a second-price auction," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 126-137.
    4. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    5. Thunström, Linda & Nordström, Jonas & Shogren, Jason F., 2015. "Certainty and overconfidence in future preferences for food," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 101-113.
    6. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    8. Kuosmanen, Timo & Kortelainen, Mika, 2007. "Valuing environmental factors in cost-benefit analysis using data envelopment analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 56-65, April.
    9. Emmanuel Flachaire & Guillaume Hollard, 2007. "Model Selection in Iterative Valuation Questions," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 117(5), pages 853-865.
    10. Carola Braun & Katrin Rehdanz & Ulrich Schmidt, 2016. "Validity of Willingness to Pay Measures under Preference Uncertainty," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, April.
    11. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2008. "How Much is Too Much?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(2), pages 165-176, June.
    12. Roy Brouwer & Thijs Dekker & John Rolfe & Jill Windle, 2010. "Choice Certainty and Consistency in Repeated Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(1), pages 93-109, May.
    13. Day, Brett & Bateman, Ian J. & Carson, Richard T. & Dupont, Diane & Louviere, Jordan J. & Morimoto, Sanae & Scarpa, Riccardo & Wang, Paul, 2012. "Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 73-91.
    14. 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.
    15. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro & Ruiz-Gauna, Itziar & Campos, Pablo, 2016. "Testing convergent validity in choice experiments: Application to public recreation in Spanish stone pine and cork oak forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 130-148.
    16. Gorm Kipperberg & Douglas Larson, 2012. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Community Recycling Programs," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(4), pages 577-604, December.
    17. Hermann Donfouet & P. Jeanty & P.-A. Mahieu, 2014. "Dealing with internal inconsistency in double-bounded dichotomous choice: an application to community-based health insurance," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 317-328, February.
    18. Kniebes, Carola & Rehdanz, Katrin & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2014. "Validity of WTP measures under preference uncertainty," Kiel Working Papers 1972, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    19. Panos, Georgios & Theodossiou, Ioannis, 2009. "Union Mediation and Adaptation to Reciprocal Loyalty Arrangements," MPRA Paper 15471, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    between sample test; choice modeling; cognitive burden; coherent arbitrariness; within sample test;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics
    • C8 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs

    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:ebl:ecbull:eb-10-00219. 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: John P. Conley (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.