IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v29y2010i1p18-22.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

—Discussion of “Alleviating the Constant Stochastic Variance Assumption in Decision Research: Theory, Measurement, and Experimental Test”

Author

Listed:
  • Jordan Louviere

    (Centre for the Study of Choice (CenSoC), Faculty of Business, University of Technology, Sydney, Broadway, New South Wales 2007, Australia)

  • Joffre Swait

    (Faculty of Business, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2R6, Canada)

Abstract

We discuss the Salisbury and Feinberg paper [Salisbury, L. C., F. M. Feinberg. 2010. Alleviating the constant stochastic variance assumption in decision research: Theory, measurement, and experimental test. (1) 1–17], setting their contribution in the historical context of the wider literature on the role of error variability in discrete choice models. We discuss the seminal nature of their contribution and suggest that the paper should be required reading for current and future Ph.D. students.

Suggested Citation

  • Jordan Louviere & Joffre Swait, 2010. "—Discussion of “Alleviating the Constant Stochastic Variance Assumption in Decision Research: Theory, Measurement, and Experimental Test”," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 18-22, 01-02.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:29:y:2010:i:1:p:18-22
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.1080.0474
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1080.0474
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.1080.0474?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adamowicz, Wiktor & Swait, Joffre & Boxall, Peter & Louviere, Jordan & Williams, Michael, 1997. "Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 65-84, January.
    2. Swait, Joffre & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Bueren, Martin van, 2004. "Choice and temporal welfare impacts: incorporating history into discrete choice models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 94-116, January.
    3. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
    4. Swait, Joffre & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2001. "Choice Environment, Market Complexity, and Consumer Behavior: A Theoretical and Empirical Approach for Incorporating Decision Complexity into Models of Consumer Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 141-167, November.
    5. Yatchew, Adonis & Griliches, Zvi, 1985. "Specification Error in Probit Models," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 67(1), pages 134-139, February.
    6. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    7. Linda Court Salisbury & Fred M. Feinberg, 2010. "Alleviating the Constant Stochastic Variance Assumption in Decision Research: Theory, Measurement, and Experimental Test," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 1-17, 01-02.
    8. Jordan Louviere & Kenneth Train & Moshe Ben-Akiva & Chandra Bhat & David Brownstone & Trudy Cameron & Richard Carson & J. Deshazo & Denzil Fiebig & William Greene & David Hensher & Donald Waldman, 2005. "Recent Progress on Endogeneity in Choice Modeling," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 255-265, December.
    9. Wiktor Adamowicz & David Bunch & Trudy Cameron & Benedict Dellaert & Michael Hanneman & Michael Keane & Jordan Louviere & Robert Meyer & Thomas Steenburgh & Joffre Swait, 2008. "Behavioral frontiers in choice modeling," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 215-228, December.
    10. Joffre Swait & Rick L. Andrews, 2003. "Enriching Scanner Panel Models with Choice Experiments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 442-460, September.
    11. Jordan J. Louviere & Towhidul Islam & Nada Wasi & Deborah Street & Leonie Burgess, 2008. "Designing Discrete Choice Experiments: Do Optimal Designs Come at a Price?," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(2), pages 360-375, March.
    12. Louviere, Jordan J, 2001. "What If Consumer Experiments Impact Variances as Well as Means? Response Variability as a Behavioral Phenomenon," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(3), pages 506-511, December.
    13. Jordan Louviere, 2006. "What You Don’t Know Might Hurt You: Some Unresolved Issues in the Design and Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 173-188, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    3. 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.
    4. Regier, Dean A. & Watson, Verity & Burnett, Heather & Ungar, Wendy J., 2014. "Task complexity and response certainty in discrete choice experiments: An application to drug treatments for juvenile idiopathic arthritis," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 40-49.
    5. Moser, Riccarda & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2014. "Does attribute cut-off elicitation affect choice consistency? Contrasting hypothetical and real-money choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 11(C), pages 16-29.
    6. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    7. Saelensminde, Kjartan, 2006. "Causes and consequences of lexicographic choices in stated choice studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 331-340, September.
    8. repec:ehu:biltok:5571 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.
    10. Moser, Riccarda & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2011. "Exploiting cut-off information to incorporate context effect: a discrete choice experiment on small fruits in a Alpine region," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114646, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Michael P. Keane & Nada Wasi, 2013. "The Structure of Consumer Taste Heterogeneity in Revealed vs. Stated Preference Data," Economics Papers 2013-W10, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    12. Terry Flynn, 2010. "Using Conjoint Analysis and Choice Experiments to Estimate QALY Values," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(9), pages 711-722, September.
    13. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & Jacob LaRiviere, 2016. "Controlling for the Effects of Information in a Public Goods Discrete Choice Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(3), pages 523-544, March.
    14. Lauren Chenarides & Carola Grebitus & Jayson L Lusk & Iryna Printezis, 2022. "A calibrated choice experiment method," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(5), pages 971-1004.
    15. Tobias Börger & Oliver Frör & Sören Weiß, 2017. "The relationship between perceived difficulty and randomness in discrete choice experiments: Investigating reasons for and consequences of difficulty," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2017-03, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    16. Flynn, Terry Nicholas & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J. & Coast, Joanna, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments to understand preferences for quality of life. Variance-scale heterogeneity matters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1957-1965, June.
    17. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Moon, Amanda, 2009. "Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-17.
    18. Helveston, John Paul & Feit, Elea McDonnell & Michalek, Jeremy J., 2018. "Pooling stated and revealed preference data in the presence of RP endogeneity," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 70-89.
    19. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Malte Oehlmann & Priska Weller, 2015. "The Influence of Design Dimensions on Stated Choices in an Environmental Context," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 61(3), pages 385-407, July.
    20. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.

    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:inm:ormksc:v:29:y:2010:i:1:p:18-22. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.