IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/halshs-00825656.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Best and worst choices

Author

Listed:
  • André de Palma

    (ENS Cachan - École normale supérieure - Cachan)

  • Karim Kilani

    (LIRSA - Laboratoire interdisciplinaire de recherche en sciences de l'action - Cnam - Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers [Cnam])

  • Gilbert Laffond

    (LIRSA-CRC - LIRSA. Centre de recherche en comptabilité - LIRSA - Laboratoire interdisciplinaire de recherche en sciences de l'action - Cnam - Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers [Cnam])

Abstract

We show that the number of individuals selecting their worst alternatives within a finite set of alternatives can be written as an alternating sum of the number of individuals having their best choice within subset of alternatives. The identities are then applied to random utility models, including the multinomial logit model, the mixed logit model and the disaggregated version of the CES representative consumer model. Finally, we show that better estimates are obtained if respondents are asked to reveal their worst instead of their best choices.

Suggested Citation

  • André de Palma & Karim Kilani & Gilbert Laffond, 2013. "Best and worst choices," Working Papers halshs-00825656, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:halshs-00825656
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00825656v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00825656v1/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pradeep K. Chintagunta & Harikesh S. Nair, 2011. "Structural Workshop Paper --Discrete-Choice Models of Consumer Demand in Marketing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 977-996, November.
    2. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, November.
    3. André Palma & Karim Kilani, 2011. "Transition choice probabilities and welfare analysis in additive random utility models," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 46(3), pages 427-454, April.
    4. José Labeaga & Xisco Oliver & Amedeo Spadaro, 2008. "Discrete choice models of labour supply, behavioural microsimulation and the Spanish tax reforms," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 6(3), pages 247-273, September.
    5. Saul Hoffman & Greg Duncan, 1988. "Multinomial and conditional logit discrete-choice models in demography," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 25(3), pages 415-427, August.
    6. Thisse, Jacques-François & Zhelobodko, Evgeny & Kokovin, Sergey, 2010. "Monopolistic Competition: Beyond the CES," CEPR Discussion Papers 7947, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    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. André de Palma & Karim Kilani, 2015. "Ordered choice probabilities in random utility models," Working Papers hal-01130603, HAL.
    2. Matthew J. Beck & John M. Rose & Stephen P. Greaves, 2017. "I can’t believe your attitude: a joint estimation of best worst attitudes and electric vehicle choice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 753-772, July.

    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. Villas-Boas, Sofia B & Taylor, Rebecca & Krovetz, Hannah, 2016. "Willingness to Pay for Low Water Footprint Food Choices During Drought," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt9vh3x180, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    2. Paolo Delle Site, 2017. "On the Equivalence Between SUE and Fixed-Point States of Day-to-Day Assignment Processes with Serially-Correlated Route Choice," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 935-962, September.
    3. Chiadmi, Ines & Traoré, Sidnoma Abdoul Aziz & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2020. "Asian tiger mosquito far from home: Assessing the impact of invasive mosquitoes on the French Mediterranean littoral," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    4. Jagannathan, Radha & Camasso, Michael J & LaFleur, Jocelyn & Monteleone, Simona, 2024. "Modeling the employment decisions of young men and women in nine European countries: An application of random utility theory and revealed preference," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 233-247.
    5. Kiran Tomlinson & Johan Ugander & Austin R. Benson, 2021. "Choice Set Confounding in Discrete Choice," Papers 2105.07959, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2021.
    6. Kiran Tomlinson & Austin R. Benson, 2022. "Graph-Based Methods for Discrete Choice," Papers 2205.11365, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    7. Olivier Bargain, 2004. "On modeling household labor supply with taxation," DELTA Working Papers 2004-14, DELTA (Ecole normale supérieure).
    8. Nguyen Tien Thong & Hans Stubbe Solgaard & Wolfgang Haider & Eva Roth & Lars Ravn†Jonsen, 2018. "Using labeled choice experiments to analyze demand structure and market position among seafood products," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 163-189, March.
    9. Teofilus Shiimi & David Uchezuba, 2025. "Willingness to Pay to Adopt Conservation Agriculture in Northern Namibia," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-17, March.
    10. Bart Capéau & Liebrecht De Sadeleer & Sebastiaan Maes & André Decoster, 2020. "Nonparametric welfare analysis for discrete choice: levels and differences of individual and social welfare," Working Papers of Department of Economics, Leuven 674666, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Economics, Leuven.
    11. Vinit Kumar Mishra & Karthik Natarajan & Dhanesh Padmanabhan & Chung-Piaw Teo & Xiaobo Li, 2014. "On Theoretical and Empirical Aspects of Marginal Distribution Choice Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(6), pages 1511-1531, June.
    12. Delle Site, Paolo & Parmar, Janak, 2024. "On the Linear Probability Model as binary choice random utility model," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    13. Paolo Delle Site & André de Palma & Karim Kilani, 2021. "Consumers’ welfare and compensating variation: survey and mode choice application," THEMA Working Papers 2021-11, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    14. Rolf Aaberge & Ugo Colombino, 2014. "Labour Supply Models," Contributions to Economic Analysis, in: Handbook of Microsimulation Modelling, volume 127, pages 167-221, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    15. Ben Aoki-Sherwood & Catherine Bregou & David Liben-Nowell & Kiran Tomlinson & Thomas Zeng, 2024. "Bounding Consideration Probabilities in Consider-Then-Choose Ranking Models," Papers 2401.11016, arXiv.org.
    16. Delle Site, Paolo & Salucci, Marco Valerio, 2013. "Transition choice probabilities and welfare analysis in random utility models with imperfect before–after correlation," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 215-242.
    17. Aydın Alptekinoğlu & John H. Semple, 2021. "Heteroscedastic Exponomial Choice," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 69(3), pages 841-858, May.
    18. Pacifico, Daniele, 2009. "A behavioral microsimulation model with discrete labour supply for Italian couples," MPRA Paper 14198, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Thoresen, Thor O. & Vattø, Trine E., 2015. "Validation of the discrete choice labor supply model by methods of the new tax responsiveness literature," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 38-53.
    20. John N. Ng’ombe & B. Wade Brorsen, 2022. "The Effect of Including Irrelevant Alternatives in Discrete Choice Models of Recreation Demand," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 60(1), pages 71-97, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Best-worst; CES; Discrete choice models; Gumbel distribution; Logit; Logsum;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hal:wpaper:halshs-00825656. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.