Abstract
Conflicting findings have been found in previous research that compared choice-based conjoint analysis and ranking conjoint analysis in a public good setting. The present paper revisits this issue for a private good in a non-hypothetical context using small and large choice sets. Our results suggest that in a small choice set setting, participants' preferences and willingness to pay are similar across the two conjoint analysis formats. However, in large choice sets, a divergence between the two conjoint analysis formats emerges. Hence, the two conjoint analysis formats can only be used interchangeably in small choice sets, not in large choice sets.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 949-963 |
| Number of pages | 15 |
| Journal | American Journal of Agricultural Economics |
| Volume | 95 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2013 Jul 1 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- conjoint analysis
- non-hypothetical settings
- small and large choice sets
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Agricultural and Biological Sciences (miscellaneous)
- Economics and Econometrics
Cite this
Are results from non-hypothetical choice-based conjoint analyses and non-hypothetical recoded-ranking conjoint analyses similar? / Akaichi, Faical; Nayga, Jr, Rodolfo M.; Gil, José M.
In: American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 95, No. 4, 01.07.2013, p. 949-963.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Are results from non-hypothetical choice-based conjoint analyses and non-hypothetical recoded-ranking conjoint analyses similar?
AU - Akaichi, Faical
AU - Nayga, Jr, Rodolfo M.
AU - Gil, José M.
PY - 2013/7/1
Y1 - 2013/7/1
N2 - Conflicting findings have been found in previous research that compared choice-based conjoint analysis and ranking conjoint analysis in a public good setting. The present paper revisits this issue for a private good in a non-hypothetical context using small and large choice sets. Our results suggest that in a small choice set setting, participants' preferences and willingness to pay are similar across the two conjoint analysis formats. However, in large choice sets, a divergence between the two conjoint analysis formats emerges. Hence, the two conjoint analysis formats can only be used interchangeably in small choice sets, not in large choice sets.
AB - Conflicting findings have been found in previous research that compared choice-based conjoint analysis and ranking conjoint analysis in a public good setting. The present paper revisits this issue for a private good in a non-hypothetical context using small and large choice sets. Our results suggest that in a small choice set setting, participants' preferences and willingness to pay are similar across the two conjoint analysis formats. However, in large choice sets, a divergence between the two conjoint analysis formats emerges. Hence, the two conjoint analysis formats can only be used interchangeably in small choice sets, not in large choice sets.
KW - conjoint analysis
KW - non-hypothetical settings
KW - small and large choice sets
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84880543677&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84880543677&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/ajae/aat013
DO - 10.1093/ajae/aat013
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84880543677
VL - 95
SP - 949
EP - 963
JO - American Journal of Agricultural Economics
JF - American Journal of Agricultural Economics
SN - 0002-9092
IS - 4
ER -