Are results from non-hypothetical choice-based conjoint analyses and non-hypothetical recoded-ranking conjoint analyses similar?

Faical Akaichi, Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr, José M. Gil

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)

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 languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)949-963
Number of pages15
JournalAmerican Journal of Agricultural Economics
Volume95
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013 Jul 1
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

willingness to pay
Research
Ranking
Choice sets
Conjoint analysis

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 journalArticle

@article{ac85ca60fcea4c658b43913589afeb91,
title = "Are results from non-hypothetical choice-based conjoint analyses and non-hypothetical recoded-ranking conjoint analyses similar?",
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.",
keywords = "conjoint analysis, non-hypothetical settings, small and large choice sets",
author = "Faical Akaichi and {Nayga, Jr}, {Rodolfo M.} and Gil, {Jos{\'e} M.}",
year = "2013",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/ajae/aat013",
language = "English",
volume = "95",
pages = "949--963",
journal = "American Journal of Agricultural Economics",
issn = "0002-9092",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "4",

}

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

VL - 95

SP - 949

EP - 963

JO - American Journal of Agricultural Economics

JF - American Journal of Agricultural Economics

SN - 0002-9092

IS - 4

ER -