Skip navigation
Skip navigation

A comparison of responses to single and repeated discrete choice questions

McNair, Benjamin; Bennett, Jeff; Hensher, David

Description

According to neoclassical economic theory, a stated preference elicitation format comprising a single binary choice between the status quo and one alternative is incentive compatible under certain conditions. Formats typically used in choice experiments comprising a sequence of discrete choice questions do not hold this property. In this paper, the effect on stated preferences of expanding the number of binary choice tasks per respondent from one to four is tested using a split sample...[Show more]

dc.contributor.authorMcNair, Benjamin
dc.contributor.authorBennett, Jeff
dc.contributor.authorHensher, David
dc.date.accessioned2010-10-06T03:12:18Z
dc.date.accessioned2010-12-20T06:02:57Z
dc.date.available2010-10-06T03:12:18Z
dc.date.available2010-12-20T06:02:57Z
dc.identifier.citationMcNair, B.J., Bennett, J. & Hensher, D.A. (2010). A comparison of responses to single and repeated discrete choice questions. Environmental Management & Development Occasional Paper 14. Canberra, ACT: Crawford School of Economics and Government, The Australian National University.
dc.identifier.issn1447-6975
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10440/1117
dc.description.abstractAccording to neoclassical economic theory, a stated preference elicitation format comprising a single binary choice between the status quo and one alternative is incentive compatible under certain conditions. Formats typically used in choice experiments comprising a sequence of discrete choice questions do not hold this property. In this paper, the effect on stated preferences of expanding the number of binary choice tasks per respondent from one to four is tested using a split sample treatment in an attribute-based survey relating to the undergrounding of overhead electricity and telecommunications wires. We find evidence to suggest that presenting multiple choice tasks per respondent decreases estimates of expected willingness to pay. Preferences stated in the first of a sequence of choice tasks are not significantly different from those stated in the incentive compatible single binary choice task, but, in subsequent choice tasks, responses are influenced by cost levels observed in past questions. Three behavioural explanations can be advanced – weak strategic misrepresentation, reference point revision and cost-driven value learning. The evidence is contrary to the standard assumption of truthful response with stable preferences.
dc.description.sponsorshipCopyright Information: Authors own the copyright. Permission granted to archive the paper and make it publicly available
dc.format39 pages
dc.publisherCanberra, ACT: Environmental Management and Development Programme, Asia Pacific School of Economics and Government, Australian National University
dc.relation.ispartofseriesEnvironmental Management & Development Occasional Paper, No. 14.
dc.rightsAuthors own the copyright. Permission granted to archive the paper and make it publicly available
dc.sourceResource and Energy Economics
dc.subjectchoice experiment
dc.subjectwillingness-to-pay
dc.subjectincentive compatibility
dc.subjectorder effects
dc.subjectundergrounding
dc.titleA comparison of responses to single and repeated discrete choice questions
dc.typeWorking/Technical Paper
local.identifier.citationvolume2010
dc.date.issued2010
local.identifier.absfor140205 - Environment and Resource Economics
local.identifier.absfor140301 - Cross-Sectional Analysis
local.identifier.absfor150507 - Pricing (incl. Consumer Value Estimation)
local.identifier.ariespublicationf2965xPUB1185
local.publisher.urlhttp://www.crawford.anu.edu.au
local.type.statusPublished version
local.contributor.affiliationMcNair, Benjamin, College of Asia and the Pacific, ANU
local.contributor.affiliationBennett, Jeffrey, College of Asia and the Pacific, ANU
local.contributor.affiliationHensher, David, College of Asia and the Pacific, ANU
local.bibliographicCitation.issue3
local.bibliographicCitation.startpage554
local.bibliographicCitation.lastpage571
local.identifier.doi10.1016/j.reseneeco.2010.12.003
local.identifier.absseo910209 - Preference, Behaviour and Welfare
dc.date.updated2020-11-15T07:19:20Z
local.identifier.scopusID2-s2.0-79957606989
local.identifier.thomsonID000292442100007
dcterms.accessRightsOpen Access
CollectionsANU College of Asia & the Pacific

Download

File Description SizeFormat Image
McNair_Comparison2010.pdfPublished version259.04 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail


Items in Open Research are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Updated:  19 May 2020/ Responsible Officer:  University Librarian/ Page Contact:  Library Systems & Web Coordinator