IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v87y2011iv1p730-743.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unraveling the Choice Format Effect: A Context-Dependent Random Utility Model

Author

Listed:
  • Jing Zhang
  • Wiktor L. Adamowicz

Abstract

A few recent studies report that preferences elicited from a two-alternative choice format are different from those elicited from a three-alternative choice format, when both choice set designs contain a status quo option. We hypothesize that the choice format effect might disappear when we estimate a random utility model (RUM) that allows for context-dependent preferences. Based on the estimated context-dependent RUM, we find that the choice format effect is likely the result of two offsetting effects: a task complexity effect that increases the probability of choosing the status quo option, and a preference matching effect, which decreases the probability.

Suggested Citation

  • Jing Zhang & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2011. "Unraveling the Choice Format Effect: A Context-Dependent Random Utility Model," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(4), pages 730-743.
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:87:y:2011:iv:1:p:730-743
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/87/4/730
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dmitriy Volinskiy & Wiktor L. Adamowicz & Michele Veeman & Lorie Srivastava, 2009. "Does Choice Context Affect the Results from Incentive‐Compatible Experiments? The Case of Non‐GM and Country‐of‐Origin Premia in Canola Oil," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 57(2), pages 205-221, June.
    2. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    3. 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.
    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. Boxebeld, Sander, 2024. "Ordering effects in discrete choice experiments: A systematic literature review across domains," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    2. 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.
    3. Oehlmann, Malte & Weller, Priska & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2014. "Complexity-induced Status Quo Effects in Discrete Choice Experiments for Environmental Valutation," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100616, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    4. Wiktor L. Adamowicz & Klaus Glenk & Jürgen Meyerhoff, 2014. "Choice modelling research in environmental and resource economics," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 27, pages 661-674, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. 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.
    6. Weng, Weizhe & Morrison, Mark & Boyle, Kevin J. & Boxall, Peter C., 2017. "The effect of the number of alternatives in choice experiment questions," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 259179, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Xiong, Hang & Hu, Wuyang & Xu, Meng & Zhan, Jintao, 2024. "Revisiting heterogenous social desirability bias in consumer willingness to pay for food carbon label: Social norms and environmental concerns," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    8. Muhammad Safdar & Arshad Jamal & Hassan M. Al-Ahmadi & Muhammad Tauhidur Rahman & Meshal Almoshaogeh, 2022. "Analysis of the Influential Factors towards Adoption of Car-Sharing: A Case Study of a Megacity in a Developing Country," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-25, February.
    9. Murwirapachena, Genius & Dikgang, Johane, 2018. "An empirical examination of reducing status quo bias in heterogeneous populations: evidence from the South African water sector," MPRA Paper 91549, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Tinessa, Fiore & Román Garcia, Concepción & Simonelli, Fulvio & Papola, Andrea & Pagliara, Francesca, 2024. "How public transport users would react to different pandemic alert scenarios in the post-vaccine era? An analysis of preferences and attitudes of the users in the metropolitan area of Naples (Italy)," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    11. Weng, Weizhe & Morrison, Mark D. & Boyle, Kevin J. & Boxall, Peter C. & Rose, John, 2021. "Effects of the number of alternatives in public good discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    12. Glenk, Klaus & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Colombo, Sergio & Faccioli, Michela, 2024. "Enhancing the face validity of choice experiments: A simple diagnostic check," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    13. Zawojska, Ewa & Czajkowski, Mikolaj & Giergiczny, Marek, 2018. "Valuing tap water quality improvements using stated preference methods. Does the number of discrete choice options matter?," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274019, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Marios Zachariou & Diane Burgess & Catherine Glass & Graham Finney, 2025. "Assessing the elicitation of perceived status quo information as a tool to increase survey engagement and enhance accuracy of preference estimates in discrete choice experiments," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 27(1), pages 85-108, January.
    15. Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Glenk, Klaus, 2015. "Learning how to choose—effects of instructional choice sets in discrete choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 122-142.
    16. Weng, Weizhe & Morrison, Mark & Boyle, Kevin & Boxall, Peter, 2017. "The effect of the number of alternatives in a choice experiment with an application to the Macquarie Marshes, AU," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252836, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    17. Oehlmann, Malte & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Mariel, Petr & Weller, Priska, 2017. "Uncovering context-induced status quo effects in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 59-73.
    18. Ahi, Jülide Ceren & Aanesen, Margrethe & Kipperberg, Gorm, 2023. "Testing the sensitivity of stated environmental preferences to variations in choice architecture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).

    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. Zhang, Junyi & Timmermans, Harry & Borgers, Aloys & Wang, Donggen, 2004. "Modeling traveler choice behavior using the concepts of relative utility and relative interest," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 215-234, March.
    2. Smeele, Nicholas V.R. & Chorus, Caspar G. & Schermer, Maartje H.N. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W., 2023. "Towards machine learning for moral choice analysis in health economics: A literature review and research agenda," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 326(C).
    3. Wiebke Roß & Jens Weghake, 2018. "Wa(h)re Liebe: Was Online-Dating-Plattformen über zweiseitige Märkte lehren," TUC Working Papers in Economics 0017, Abteilung für Volkswirtschaftslehre, Technische Universität Clausthal (Department of Economics, Technical University Clausthal).
    4. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ballester, 2009. "A theory of reference-dependent behavior," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 427-455, September.
    5. Kareen Rozen, 2010. "Foundations of Intrinsic Habit Formation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(4), pages 1341-1373, July.
    6. Luigi Guiso, 2015. "A Test of Narrow Framing and its Origin," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 1(1), pages 61-100, March.
    7. Pingle, Mark & Mitchell, Mike, 2002. "What motivates positional concerns for income?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 127-148, February.
    8. Bethan Copsey & James Buchanan & Raymond Fitzpatrick & Sarah E. Lamb & Susan J. Dutton & Jonathan A. Cook, 2019. "Duration of Treatment Effect Should Be Considered in the Design and Interpretation of Clinical Trials: Results of a Discrete Choice Experiment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(4), pages 461-473, May.
    9. Shunda, Nicholas, 2009. "Auctions with a buy price: The case of reference-dependent preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 645-664, November.
    10. Christian Grund & Dirk Sliwka, 2007. "Reference-Dependent Preferences and the Impact of Wage Increases on Job Satisfaction: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 163(2), pages 313-335, June.
    11. Hu, Li & Ma, Hoi-Lam & Wang, Li & Liu, Yang, 2023. "Hiding or disclosing? Information discrimination in member-only discounts," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    12. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    13. Daniel W. Elfenbein & Anne Marie Knott & Rachel Croson, 2017. "Equity stakes and exit: An experimental approach to decomposing exit delay," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 278-299, February.
    14. Shuli Liu & Xinwang Liu, 2016. "A Sample Survey Based Linguistic MADM Method with Prospect Theory for Online Shopping Problems," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 749-774, July.
    15. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:2:p:136-149 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Marianne Bertrand & Dean S. Karlan & Sendhil Mullainathan & Eldar Shafir & Jonathan Zinman, 2005. "What's Psychology Worth? A Field Experiment in the Consumer Credit Market," Working Papers 918, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    17. repec:esx:essedp:762 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Ghosal, Sayantan & Dalton, Patricio, 2013. "Characterizing Behavioral Decisions with Choice Data," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 107, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    19. Grund, Christian & Sliwka, Dirk, 2001. "The Impact of Wage Increases on Job Satisfaction - Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Implications," IZA Discussion Papers 387, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Duncan Luce, R., 1997. "Associative joint receipts," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 51-74, August.
    21. Louis Lévy-Garboua & Claude Montmarquette, 1996. "Cognition In Seemingly Riskless Choices And Judgments," Rationality and Society, , vol. 8(2), pages 167-185, May.
    22. Hong, Yan-Zhen & Su, Yi-Ju & Chang, Hung-Hao, 2023. "Analyzing the relationship between income and life satisfaction of Forest farm households - a behavioral economics approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    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:uwp:landec:v:87:y:2011:iv:1:p:730-743. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.