Position-Dependent order effects on the prediction of consumer preferences in repeated choice experiments

References

• Adamowicz, W., J. Louviere, and M. Williams. 1994. “Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26 (3): 271–292. doi:10.1006/jeem.1994.1017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bateman, I. J., D. Burgess, W. G. Hutchinson, and D. I. Matthews. 2008. “Learning Design Contingent Valuation (LDCV): NOAA Guidelines, Preference Learning and Coherent Arbitrariness.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 55 (2): 127–141. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2007.08.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyle, K. J., R. C. Bishop, and M. P. Welsh. 1985. “Starting Point Bias in Contingent Valuation Bidding Games.” Land Economics 61: 188–194. doi:10.2307/3145811.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braga, J., and C. Starmer. 2005. “Preference Anomalies, Preference Elicitation and the Discovered Preference Hypothesis.” Environmental and Resource Economics 32 (1): 55–89. doi:10.1007/s10640-005-6028-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brouwer, R., T. Dekker, J. Rolfe, and J. Windle. 2010. “Choice Certainty and Consistency in Repeated Choice Experiments.” Environmental and Resource Economics 46 (1): 93–109. doi:10.1007/s10640-009-9337-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlsson, F., M. R. Mørkbak, and S. B. Olsen. 2012. “The First Time Is the Hardest: A Test of Ordering Effects in Choice Experiments.” Journal of Choice Modelling 5 (2): 19–37. doi:10.1016/S1755-5345(13)70051-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlsson, F., and P. Martinsson. 2001. “Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments? Application to the Valuation of the Environment.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 41 (2): 179–192. doi:10.1006/jeem.2000.1138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson, R. T., and T. Groves. 2007. “Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions.” Environmental and Resource Economics 37 (1): 181–210. doi:10.1007/s10640-007-9124-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chrzan, K. 1994. “Three Kinds of Order Effects in Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis.” Marketing Letters 5 (2): 165–172. doi:10.1007/BF00994106.
   Google Scholar
• Czajkowski, M., M. Giergiczny, and W. H. Greene. 2014. “Learning and Fatigue Effects Revisited: Investigating the Effects of Accounting for Unobservable Preference and Scale Heterogeneity.” Land Economics 90 (2): 324–351. doi:10.3368/le.90.2.324.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Day, B., I. J. Bateman, R. T. Carson, D. Dupont, J. J. Louviere, S. Morimoto, R. Scarpa, and P. Wang. 2012. “Ordering Effects and Choice Set Awareness in Repeat-Response Stated Preference Studies.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 63 (1): 73–91. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2011.09.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeSarbo, W. S., D. R. Lehmann, and F. G. Hollman. 2004. “Modeling Dynamic Effects in Repeated-Measures Experiments Involving Preference/Choice: An Illustration Involving Stated Preference Analysis.” Applied Psychological Measurement 28 (3): 186–209. doi:10.1177/0146621604264150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiebig, D. G., M. P. Keane, J. J. Louviere, and N. Wasi. 2010. “The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity.” Marketing Science 29: 393–412. doi:10.1287/mksc.1090.0508.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glenk, K. 2007. “Effects of Attribute Order in Choice Experiments: Evidence from Rural Indonesia.” Working Paper of the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Gu, Y., A. R. Hole, and S. Knox. 2013. “Fitting the Generalized Multinomial Logit Model in Stata.” Stata Journal 13: 382–397.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hensher, D. A., J. M. Rose, and W. H. Greene. 2005. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Herriges, J. A., and J. F. Shogren. 1996. “Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30 (1): 112–131. doi:10.1006/jeem.1996.0008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hess, S., and J. M. Rose. 2009. “Allowing for Intra-Respondent Variations in Coefficients Estimated on Repeated Choice Data.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 43 (6): 708–719. doi:10.1016/j.trb.2009.01.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes, T. P., and K. J. Boyle. 2005. “Dynamic Learning and Context-Dependence in Sequential, Attribute-Based, Stated-Preference Valuation Questions.” Land Economics 81 (1): 114–126. doi:10.3368/le.81.1.114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, W. 2008. “My Favorite Is Not on the Shelf: Effects of the Revealed-Preference Bundle on Consumers’ Stated Choice.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 35 (1): 29–50. doi:10.1093/erae/jbn002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, W., W. L. Adamowicz, and M. M. Veeman. 2006. “Labeling Context And Reference Point Effects In Models Of Food Attribute Demand.” American Journal Of Agricultural Economics 88 (4): 1034–1049.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhfeld, W. F. 2005. “Marketing Research Methods in Sas.” In Experimental Design, Choice, Conjoint, and Graphical Techniques. Cary, NC: SAS-Institute TS-722.
   Google Scholar
• Ladenburg, J., and S. B. Olsen. 2008. “Gender-Specific Starting Point Bias in Choice Experiments: Evidence from an Empirical Study.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 56 (3): 275–285. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2008.01.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lancaster, K. J. 1966. “A New Approach to Consumer Theory.” The Journal of Political Economy 74: 132–157. doi:10.1086/259131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louviere, J. 2000. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis And Applications. Harvard: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Louviere, J. J., R. J. Meyer, D. S. Bunch, R. Carson, B. Dellaert, W. M. Hanemann, … J. Irwin. 1999. “Combining Sources of Preference Data for Modeling Complex Decision Processes.” Marketing Letters 10 (3): 205–217. doi:10.1023/A:1008050215270.
   Google Scholar
• Mazumdar, T., S. P. Raj, and I. Sinha. 2005. “Reference Price Research: Review and Propositions.” Journal of Marketing 69 (4): 84–102. doi:10.1509/jmkg.2005.69.4.84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McFadden, D. 1974. “The Measurement Of Urban Travel Demand.” Journal Of Public Economics 3 (4): 303-328.
   Google Scholar
• McNair, B. J., J. Bennett, and D. A. Hensher. 2011. “A Comparison of Responses to Single and Repeated Discrete Choice Questions.” Resource and Energy Economics 33 (3): 554–571. doi:10.1016/j.reseneeco.2010.12.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison, G. C. 2000. “WTP and WTA in Repeated Trial Experiments: Learning or Leading?” Journal of Economic Psychology 21 (1): 57–72. doi:10.1016/S0167-4870(99)00036-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patterson, Z., J. M. Darbani, A. Rezaei, J. Zacharias, and A. Yazdizadeh. 2017. “Comparing Text-Only and Virtual Reality Discrete Choice Experiments of Neighbourhood Choice.” Landscape and Urban Planning 157: 63–74. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plott, C. R. 1996. “Rational Individual Behavior in Markets and Social Choice Processes: The Discovered Preference Hypothesis.” In Rational Foundations of Economics Behavior, edited by K. Arrow, M. Colombatto, M. Perleman, and C. Schmidt, 225–250. London: McMillian.
   Google Scholar
• Racevskis, L. A., and F. Lupi. 2008. “Incentive Compatibility in an Attribute-Based Referendum Model.” American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, 27–29. Orlando, FL, July.
   Google Scholar
• Revelt, D., and K. Train. 1998. “Mixed Logit with Repeated Choices: Households’ Choices of Appliance Efficiency Level.” Review of Economics and Statistics 80 (4): 647–657. doi:10.1162/003465398557735.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revelt, D., and K. Train. 2000. “Customer-Specific Taste Parameters and Mixed Logit: Households’ Choice of Electricity Supplier.” Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley.
   Google Scholar
• Savage, S. J., and D. M. Waldman. 2008. “Learning and Fatigue during Choice Experiments: A Comparison of Online and Mail Survey Modes.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 23 (3): 351–371. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1255.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scarpa, R., M. Thiene, and K. Train. 2008. “Utility In Willingness To Pay Space: A Tool To Address Confounding Random Scale Effects In Destination Choice To The Alps.” American Journal Of Agricultural Economics 90 (4): 994–1010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheufele, G., and J. Bennett. 2013. “Effects of Alternative Elicitation Formats in Discrete Choice Experiments.” Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 57 (2): 214–233. doi:10.1111/ajar.2013.57.issue-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swait, J., and J. Louviere. 1993. “The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Comparison of Multinomial Logit Models.” Journal of Marketing Research 30: 305–314. doi:10.2307/3172883.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swait, J., and W. Adamowicz. 2001. “The Influence of Task Complexity on Consumer Choice: A Latent Class Model of Decision Strategy Switching.” Journal of Consumer Research 28 (1): 135–148. doi:10.1086/321952.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Townsend, C., and B. E. Kahn. 2014. “The “Visual Preference Heuristic”: The Influence of Visual versus Verbal Depiction on Assortment Processing, Perceived Variety, and Choice Overload.” Journal of Consumer Research 40 (5): 993–1015. doi:10.1086/673521.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar