IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v58y2004i11p2211-2218.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Repeated follow-up as a method for reducing non-trading behaviour in discrete choice experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Cairns, John
  • van der Pol, Marjon

Abstract

Eliciting individuals' preferences using discrete choice experiments is becoming increasingly popular. An emerging issue is that some people do not trade, that is, their choices are consistent with them having a dominant preference. However, it may be the case that these individuals have not been presented with the 'right' trade-offs. This experiment presents individuals with trade-offs that are systematically varied in response to their previous answer. It is thus assessed whether individuals have truly dominant preferences or whether they will trade given the 'right' choices. The preferences studied are time preferences over future health states. After being presented with an initial discrete choice, 203 university students were asked a series of follow-up questions using a web-based questionnaire. Very little evidence of any dominant preferences was found in this sample of respondents. Only one subject did not trade duration and timing following repeated follow-up questions. This finding suggests that non-trading behaviour could be virtually eliminated by asking the 'right' questions.

Suggested Citation

  • Cairns, John & van der Pol, Marjon, 2004. "Repeated follow-up as a method for reducing non-trading behaviour in discrete choice experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(11), pages 2211-2218, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:58:y:2004:i:11:p:2211-2218
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(03)00445-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Ratcliffe, Julie & Bekker, Hilary L. & Dolan, Paul & Edlin, Richard, 2009. "Examining the attitudes and preferences of health care decision-makers in relation to access, equity and cost-effectiveness: A discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 45-57, April.
    2. Urpo Kiiskinen & Anna Liisa Suominen‐Taipale & John Cairns, 2010. "Think twice before you book? Modelling the choice of public vs private dentist in a choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(6), pages 670-682, June.
    3. van der Pol, Marjon & Walsh, David & McCartney, Gerry, 2015. "Comparing time and risk preferences across three post-industrial UK cities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 54-61.
    4. Börjesson, Maria & Fosgerau, Mogens & Algers, Staffan, 2012. "Catching the tail: Empirical identification of the distribution of the value of travel time," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 378-391.
    5. Stephane Hess & Amanda Stathopoulos & Andrew Daly, 2012. "Allowing for heterogeneous decision rules in discrete choice models: an approach and four case studies," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 565-591, May.
    6. Trine Kjær & Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen & Kristian Hart‐Hansen, 2006. "Ordering effect and price sensitivity in discrete choice experiments: need we worry?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(11), pages 1217-1228, November.
    7. Dimitropoulos, Alexandros & van Ommeren, Jos N. & Koster, Paul & Rietveld, Piet, 2016. "Not fully charged: Welfare effects of tax incentives for employer-provided electric cars," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 1-19.
    8. Determann, Domino & Lambooij, Mattijs S. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W. & Hayen, Arthur P. & Varkevisser, Marco & Schut, Frederik T. & Wit, G. Ardine de, 2016. "What health plans do people prefer? The trade-off between premium and provider choice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 10-18.
    9. Lim, Jennifer N.W. & Edlin, Richard, 2009. "Preferences of older patients and choice of treatment location in the UK: A binary choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 252-257, August.
    10. Alexandros Dimitropoulos & Jos N. van Ommeren & Paul Koster & Piet Rietveld†, 2014. "Welfare Effects of Distortionary Tax Incentives under Preference Heterogeneity: An Application to Employer-provided Electric Cars," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 14-064/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    11. Harry Telser & Karolin Becker & Peter Zweifel, 2008. "Validity and Reliability of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 1(4), pages 283-298, October.
    12. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson & Vikki Entwistle, 2009. "Rationalising the ‘irrational’: a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 321-336, March.

    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:eee:socmed:v:58:y:2004:i:11:p:2211-2218. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.