When using discrete choice experiments (DCEs) it is crucial to ensure that subjects are answering in a “rational” (internally consistent) way. One approach to testing rationality is to test the axiom of non-satiation, i.e. more is preferred to less.Within DCEs satisfaction of this axiom has been explored by including choices where one of the options has no worse levels for any of the attributes and better levels for at least one (See Chapters 4, 5 and 7 in this book and Ryan et al., 2001). Johnson and Mathews (2001) carried out different tests of choice consistency, including dominance, monotonicity across different pairs and so-called stability (repetition of identical choices within the same questionnaire). Transitivity of preferences has also been explored (San Miguel, 2000).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Aronson, J. 1994. A pragmatic view of thematic analysis. The Qualitative Report, vol 2 (1).
Caldow, J.L., Bond, C.M. and Ryan, M. et al. 2000. Treatment of minor illness in primary care: a national survey of patient attitudes to a wider nursing role’. Report to the Scottish Chief Scientist Office, K/OPR/2/2/D340.
DeShazo, J.R. and Fermo, G. 2002. Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, vol 44, 123–143.
Drolet, A.L., Simonson, I. and Tversky, A. 2000. Indifference curves that travel with the choice set. Marketing Letters, vol 11, 199–209.
Earl, P.E. 1990. Economics and psychology: a survey. The Economic Journal, vol 100, 718–755.
Elrod, T., Louviere J.J. and Davey, K.S. 1992. An empirical comparison of rating-based and choice-based conjoint models. Journal of Marketing Research, vol 29, 368–377.
Ericcson, K.A. and Simon, H.A. 1993. Protocol Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fishburn, P.C. 1970. Intransitive indifference in preference theory: a survey. Operations Research, vol 18, 207–228.
Foster, V. and Mourato, S. 2002. Testing for consistency in contingent raking experiments. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, vol 44, 302–328.
Greene, W.H. 1997. Econometric Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prenctice Hall.
Johnson, F.R. and Desvousges, W.H. 1997. Estimating stated preferences with rated-pair data: environmental, health and employment effects of energy programs. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, vol 34 (1), 79–99.
Johnson, F.R. and Mathews, K.E. 2001. Sources and effects of utility–theoretic inconsistency in stated preference surveys. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol 5, 1328–1333.
Lancsar, E. and Louviere, J.J. 2006. Deleting “irrational” responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Economics, vol 15 (8), 797–811.
Loewenstein, G. 1999. Experimental economics from the vantage-point of behavioural economics. The Economics Journal, vol 109, F25–F34.
Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A. and Swait, J.D. 2000. Stated Choice Methods. Analysis and Application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maddala, T., Phillips, K.A. and Johnson, F.R. 2002. An experiment on simplifying conjoint analysis designs for measuring preferences. Health Economics, vol 37 (6), 1681–1705.
May, K.O. 1954. Intransitivity, utility, and the aggregation of preference patterns. Econometrica, vol 22, 1–13.
Mazzotta, M. and Opaluch, J. 1995. Decision making when choices are complex: a test of Heiner’s hypothesis. Land Economics, vol 71 (4), 500–515.
Rouwendal, J. and de Blaiej, A.T. 2004. Inconsistent and lexicographic choice in stated preference analysis. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper. TI 2004–038/3. http://www.tinbergen.nl/discussionpapers/04038.pdf.
Ryan, M. and Gerard, K. 2003. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care: current practice and future prospects. Applied Health Economics and Policy Analysis, vol 2 (1), 55–64.
Ryan, M. and San Miguel, F. 2003. Revisiting the axiom of completeness in health care. Health Economics, vol 12 (4), 293–308.
Ryan, M., Scott, D.A., Reeves, C., Bate, A., van Teijlingen, E., Russell, E., Napper, M. and Robb, C. 2001. Eliciting public preferences for health care: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technology Assessment, vol 5 (5), 1–186.
Ryan, M., Reeves, C. and Entwistle, V. 2002. Listening to respondents: a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses. Paper presented to the Health Economic Study Group Meeting, University of East Anglia, January.
Saelensminde, K. 2002. The impact of choice inconsistencies in stated choice studies. Environmental and Resource Economics, vol 23, 403–420.
San Miguel, F. 2000. Testing the assumptions of completeness, stability and rationality of preferences in health economics using discrete choice experiments. Ph.D. thesis. University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen.
Sen, A. 1993. Internal consistency of choice. Econometrica, vol 61, 495–521.
Severin, V.C., Burgess, L., Louviere, J. and Street, D.J. 2004. Comparing statistical efficiency and respondent efficiency in choice experiments. Research report, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.
Shugan, S.M. 1980. The cost of thinking. Journal of Consumer Research, vol 7 (2), 99–111.
Simonson, I. 1989. Choice based on reasons: the case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, vol 16, 158–174.
Slovic, P. 1995. The construction of preference. American Psychologist, vol 50, 364–371.
Swait, J. and Adamowicz, W. 2001. Choice environment, market complexity, and consumer behavior: a theoretical and empirical approach for incorporating decision complexity into models of consumer choice. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, vol 86 (2), 141–167.
Tversky, A. 1969. Intransitivity of preferences. Psychological Review, vol 76, 31–48.
Tversky, A. and Sattah, S. 1979. Preference trees. Psychological Review, vol 86, 542–573.
Zwerina, K., Huber, J. and Kuhfeld, W. 1996. A General method for constructing efficient choice designs, SAS working paper. http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/rd/89088587, 376089, 1, 0.25. Download/http:qSqqSqftp.sas.comqSqtechsupqSqdownloadqSqtechnoteqSqts629.pdf.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Inza, F.S.M., Ryan, M., Amaya-Amaya, M. (2008). “Irrational” Stated Preferences: A quantitative and qualitative investigation. In: Ryan, M., Gerard, K., Amaya-Amaya, M. (eds) Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Value Health and Health Care. The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources, vol 11. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5753-3_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5753-3_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-4082-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-5753-3
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)