 |
| Research article summary (published 27 Feb 2009): |
Rationalising the 'irrational': a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses.
Full Abstract
Stated preference methods assume respondents' preferences are consistent with utility theory, but many empirical studies report evidence of preferences that violate utility theory. This evidence is often derived from quantitative tests that occur naturally within, or are added to, stated preference tasks. In this study, we use qualitative methods to explore three axioms of utility theory: completeness, monotonicity, and continuity. We take a novel approach, adopting a 'think aloud' technique to identify violations of the axioms of utility theory and to consider how well the quantitative tests incorporated within a discrete choice experiment are able to detect these. Results indicate that quantitative tests classify respondents as being 'irrational' when qualitative statements would indicate they are 'rational'. In particular, 'non-monotonic' responses can often be explained by respondents inferring additional information beyond what is presented in the task, and individuals who appear to adopt non-compensatory decision-making strategies do so because they rate particular attributes very highly (they are not attempting to simplify the task). The results also provide evidence of 'cost-based responses': respondents assumed tests with higher costs would be of higher quality. The value of including in-depth qualitative validation techniques in the development of stated preference tasks is shown.
Author information
Author/s: Ryan, Mandy (M); Watson, Verity (V); Entwistle, Vikki (V);
Affiliation: Health Economics Research Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UK. m.ryan(-atsign-)abdn.ac.uk
Journal and publication information
Publication Type: Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Journal: Health economics (Health Econ), published in England. (Language: eng)
Reference: 2009-Mar; vol 18 (issue 3) : pp 321-36
Dates: Created 2009/02/16; Completed 2009/04/29;
PMID: 18651601, status: MEDLINE (last retrieval date: 4/29/2009, IMS Date: 29 Apr 2009 00:00:00)
Sourced from the National Library of Medicine. Abstract text and other information may be subject to copyright.
External Links for this article
(including full text providers, if available):
Click Electronic Full-text Provider Links to see options for finding the electronic full text links to this article. Note there may be a subscription or fee required for access to the full text. See our FAQ for information on finding FREE full text articles.
This article may also be located in paper journal collections available in many libraries. Use the Journal and Publication Information above to find the full article.
MeSH headings (categories)
This article was linked to the MESH Headings shown below.
Related articles
This article has not been indexed for related articles as yet, however you can still use the live related article search links below.
See a large map of 100+ related articles.