IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v95y2013i4p949-963.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are Results from Non-hypothetical Choice-based Conjoint Analyses and Non-hypothetical Recoded-ranking Conjoint Analyses Similar?

Author

Listed:
  • Faical Akaichi
  • Rodolfo M. Nayga
  • José M. Gil

Abstract

Conflicting findings have been found in previous research that compared choice-based conjoint analysis and ranking conjoint analysis in a public good setting. The present paper revisits this issue for a private good in a non-hypothetical context using small and large choice sets. Our results suggest that in a small choice set setting, participants' preferences and willingness to pay are similar across the two conjoint analysis formats. However, in large choice sets, a divergence between the two conjoint analysis formats emerges. Hence, the two conjoint analysis formats can only be used interchangeably in small choice sets, not in large choice sets. Copyright 2013, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Faical Akaichi & Rodolfo M. Nayga & José M. Gil, 2013. "Are Results from Non-hypothetical Choice-based Conjoint Analyses and Non-hypothetical Recoded-ranking Conjoint Analyses Similar?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(4), pages 949-963.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:95:y:2013:i:4:p:949-963
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ajae/aat013
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Lijia Shi & Jing Xie & Zhifeng Gao, 2018. "The impact of deal†proneness on WTP estimates in incentive†aligned value elicitation methods," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(3), pages 353-362, May.
    2. Claudia Bazzani & Marco A. Palma & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2018. "On the use of flexible mixing distributions in WTP space: an induced value choice experiment," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 62(2), pages 185-198, April.
    3. José L. Oviedo & Hong Il Yoo, 2017. "A Latent Class Nested Logit Model for Rank-Ordered Data with Application to Cork Oak Reforestation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 1021-1051, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Stefan Holm & Renato Lemm & Oliver Thees & Lorenz M. Hilty, 2016. "Enhancing Agent-Based Models with Discrete Choice Experiments," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 19(3), pages 1-3.
    6. Sheng-Hsun Hsu & Cheng-Fu Hsiao & Sang-Bing Tsai, 2018. "Constructing a consumption model of fine dining from the perspective of behavioral economics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-21, April.
    7. Liu, Ruifeng & ,, 2021. "What We Can Learn from the Interactions of Food Traceable Attributes? a Case Study of Fuji Apple in China," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315916, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Denise Doiron & Hong Il Yoo, 2020. "Stated preferences over job characteristics: A panel study," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 43-82, February.
    9. Oviedo, José L. & Caparrós, Alejandro, 2015. "Information and visual attention in contingent valuation and choice modeling: field and eye-tracking experiments applied to reforestations in Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 185-204.
    10. Huls, Samare P.I. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W., 2022. "Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data? The role of model complexity in a discrete choice experiment about colorectal cancer screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    11. Yangui, Ahmed1 & Akaichi, Faiçal & Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, Jose Maria, 2014. "Are ranking preferences information methods comparable with the choice experiment information in predicting actual behavior?," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182672, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Bazzani, Claudia & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Canavari, Maurizio & Danforth, Diana M., 2016. "On the Use of the BDM Mechanism in Non-Hypothetical Choice Experiments," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235904, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Denise Doiron & Hong Il Yoo, 2017. "Temporal Stability of Stated Preferences: The Case of Junior Nursing Jobs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(6), pages 802-809, June.
    14. Yangui, Ahmed & Akaichi, Faical & Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, Jose Maria, 2019. "Comparing results of ranking conjoint analyses, best–worst scaling and discrete choice experiments in a nonhypothetical context," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(2), April.
    15. Agúndez, Dolores & Lawali, Sitou & Mahamane, Ali & Alía, Ricardo & Soliño, Mario, 2022. "Development of agroforestry food resources in Niger: Are farmers’ preferences context specific?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    16. Zhai, Qianqian & Kassas, Bachir & Zhao, Shuoli & Chen, Lijun & Chen, Chao, 2020. "Investigating Preference Inconsistencies in Incentive Structures that Account for House Money Effects," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304584, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Claudia Bazzani & Vincenzina Caputo & Rodolfo M. Nayga JR. & Maurizio Canavari, 2017. "Testing Commitment Cost Theory In Choice Experiments," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(1), pages 383-396, January.
    18. Yangui, A. & Akaichi, F. & Gil, J.M., 2018. "Investigating attribute non-attendance effects in conjoint analysis methods performance: Choice experiment, ranking conjoint analysis and best worst scaling," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 275989, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Yangui, A. & Akaichi, Faiçal & Costa-Font, M. & Gil, J. M., 2014. "Do experimental protocols in Conjoint Analysis matter in non Hypothetical settings?," 88th Annual Conference, April 9-11, 2014, AgroParisTech, Paris, France 170345, Agricultural Economics Society.

    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:oup:ajagec:v:95:y:2013:i:4:p:949-963. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.