Discrete Choice Experiment
‘Irrational’ stated preferences: a quantitative and qualitative investigation
Fernando San Miguel,
Mandy Ryan,
Mabelle Amaya-Amaya,
Corresponding Author
Fernando San Miguel
Institución Futuro, Plaza del Palacio de Gorraiz, Navarra, Spain
Institución Futuro, Plaza del Palacio de Gorraiz, 4, Valle de Egüés, 31620, Navarra, Spain===Search for more papers by this authorMandy Ryan
Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Scotland
Search for more papers by this authorMabelle Amaya-Amaya
Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Scotland
Search for more papers by this authorFernando San Miguel,
Mandy Ryan,
Mabelle Amaya-Amaya,
Corresponding Author
Fernando San Miguel
Institución Futuro, Plaza del Palacio de Gorraiz, Navarra, Spain
Institución Futuro, Plaza del Palacio de Gorraiz, 4, Valle de Egüés, 31620, Navarra, Spain===Search for more papers by this authorMandy Ryan
Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Scotland
Search for more papers by this authorMabelle Amaya-Amaya
Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Scotland
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Individuals' rationality has been a key issue long debated in Economics. While normative theories establish the way ‘rational’ consumers should behave, many empirical studies have documented numerous systematic violations of normative principles. This has led some to question the validity of classic economic models as an adequate approximation of individuals' real decision-making. This paper aims to shed more light on this debate. A stated preference choice experiment was set up to test rational choice properties. Attention was given to the extent to which satisfaction of such tests is related to both the complexity of the design, and subject characteristics. Quantitative and qualitative methods are applied. The majority of respondents passed the rationality tests. Satisfaction of the tests was sensitive to normatively irrelevant factors such as the complexity of the task and demographic characteristics. A significant proportion of those individuals who ‘failed’ seem to have reformulated the experiment in some way in their mental process. Implications for the design and analyses of future DCEs are discussed. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
References
- 1 Sugden R. Rational choice: a survey of contributions from economics and philosophy. Econ J 1991; 101: 751–785.
- 2 McFadden D. Rationality for economists? J Risk and Uncertainty 1999; 19: 73–105.
- 3 Smith VL. Rational choice: the contrast between economics and psychology. J Polit Econ 1991; 99(4): 877–897.
- 4 Baron J. Thinking and Deciding ( 2nd edn). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1994.
- 5 Camerer CF. Individual decision-making. In Handbook of Experimental Economics, JH Kagel, A Roth (eds). Princeton Univ Press: Princeton, NJ, 1995.
- 6 Goldstein WM, Hogarth RM. Research on Judgement and Decision Making: Currents, Connections and Controversies. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1997.
- 7 Hastie R. Problems for judgement and decision-making. Ann Rev Psychol 2001; 52: 653–683.
- 8 Kahneman D, Tversky A. Choices, Values and Frames. Cambridge University Press/Russell Sage Foundation: New York, 2000.
10.1017/CBO9780511803475 Google Scholar
- 9 Mellers BA, Schwartz A, Cooke A. Judgement and decision-making. Ann Rev Psychol 1998; 49: 447–477.
- 10 Shafir E, Tversky A. Decision making. In Thinking: An Invitation to Cognitive Science, EE Smith, DN Osherson (eds), vol. 3. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1995; 77–100.
- 11 Yates JF. Judgment and Decision Making. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1990.
- 12 Rabin M. A perspective on psychology and economics, 2002. Paper based on the Marshall Lecture on the same title. European Economic Association Meeting, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1 September, 2001.
- 13 Camerer CF, Loewenstein G, Rabin M. Behavioral economics: past, present and future. In Advances in Behavioural Economics, CF Camerer, G Loewenstein, M Rabin (eds). Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, 2003.
- 14 Starmer C. Experimental economics: hard science or wasteful tinkering? Econ J 1999; 109: F5–F15.
- 15 Starmer C. Developments in non-expected utility theory: the hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. J Econ Lit 2000; 38(2): 332–382.
- 16 Shafir E, LeBouef RB. Rationality. Ann Rev Psychol 2002; 53: 491–517.
- 17 Sutherland HJ, Lockwood GA, Minkin S, Tritchler DL, Till JL, Llewellyn-Thomas HA. Measuring satisfaction with health care: a comparison of single with paired rating strategies. Soc Sci Med 1989; 28: 53–58.
- 18 Rutten-van Mölken MPMH, Bakker CH, van Doorslaer EKA, Van der Linden S. Methodological issues of patient utility measurement. Experience from two clinical trials. Med Care 1995; 33: 922–937.
- 19 Dolan P, Kind P. Inconsistency and health state valuations. Soc Sci Med 1996; 42: 609–615.
- 20 Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. J Health Econ 1996; 15: 209–231.
- 21 Krabbe PFM, EssinkBot ML, Bonsel GJ. The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods. Soc Sci Med 1997; 45: 1641–1652.
- 22 Kartman B, Stålhammar N-O, Johannesson M. Valuation of health changes with the contingent valuation method: a test of scope and question order effects. Health Econ 1996; 5: 531–541.
- 23 Berwick DM, Weinstein MC. What do patients value? Willingness to pay for ultrasound in normal pregnancy. Med Care 1985; 7: 881–893.
- 24 Norinder A, Hjalte K, Persson U. Scope and scale insensitivities in a contingent valuation study of risk reductions. Health Policy 2001; 57: 141–153.
- 25 Donaldson C, Shackley P, Abdalla M. Using willingness to pay to value close substitutes: carrier screening for cystic fibrosis revisited. Health Econ 1997; 6: 145–159.
10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199703)6:2<145::AID-HEC253>3.0.CO;2-N CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
- 26 Ryan M, San Miguel F. Testing for consistency in willingness to pay experiments. J Econ Psychol 2000; 21: 305–317.
- 27 Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C et al. Eliciting public preferences for health care: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess 2001; 5(5).
- 28 Johnson FR, Mathews KB. Sources and effects of utility—theoretic inconsistency in stated preference surveys. Am J Agric Econ 2001; 5: 1328–1333.
- 29 San Miguel F. Testing the assumptions of completeness, stability and rationality of preferences in health economics using discrete choice experiments. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, 2000.
- 30 Sen A. Internal consistency of choice. Econometrica 1993; 61: 495–521.
- 31 May KO. Intransitivity, utility, and the aggregation of preference patterns. Econometrica 1954; 22: 1–13.
- 32 Earl PE. Economics and psychology: a survey. Econ J 1990; 100: 718–755.
- 33 Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD. Stated Choice Methods. Analysis and Application. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2000.
10.1017/CBO9780511753831 Google Scholar
- 34 Caldow JL, Bond CM, Ryan M et al. Treatment of minor illness in primary care: a national survey of patient attitudes to a wider nursing role. 2000. Report to the Scottish Chief Scientist Office, K/OPR/2/2/D340.
- 35 Loewenstein G. Experimental economics from the vantage-point of behavioural economics. Econ J 1999; 109: F25–F34.
- 36 Ryan M, Reeves C, Entwistle V. Listening to respondents: a think aloud study of Discrete Choice Experiment responses. In Proceedings of the Health Economic Study Group Meeting, University of East Anglia, January 2002.
- 37 Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care: current practice and future prospects. Appl Health Econ Policy Anal 2003; 2: 55–64.
- 38 Sen A. On Ethics and Economics. Basil Blackwell: Cambridge, 1987.
- 39 Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ. The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, 1993.
- 40Simon HA. Behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly J Econ 1955, 69: 99–118.
- 41 Heiner RA. The origin of predictable behavior. Am Econ Rev 1983; 73: 560–595.
- 42 De Palma A, Myers GM, Papageorgiou YY. Rational choice under an imperfect ability to choose. Am Econ Rev 1994; 84: 419–440.
- 43 Montgomery H. Decision rules, the search for a dominance structure: towards a process model of decision-making. In Analyzing and Aiding Decision Processes, PC Humphreys, O Svenson, A Vari (eds). North-Holland: Amsterdam, 1983; 343–369.
- 44 Debreu G. Review of R.D. Luce, Individual choice behaviour: a theoretical analysis. Am Econ Rev 1960; 50: 186–188.
- 45 Tversky A. Elimination by aspects: a theory of choice. Psychol Rev 1972; 79: 281–299.
- 46 Shugan SM. The cost of thinking. J Consumer Res 1980; 7(2): 99–111.
- 47 Tversky A, Sattah S. Preference trees. Psychol Rev 1979; 86: 542–573.
- 48 DeShazo JR, Fermo G. Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency. J Environ Econ Manage 2002; 44: 123–143.
- 49 Swait J, Adamowicz W. 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 Process 2001; 86(2): 141–167.
- 50 Elrod T, Louviere JJ, Davey KS. An empirical comparison of rating-based and choice-based conjoint models. J Market Res 1992; 29: 368–377.
- 51 Greene WH. Econometric Analysis. Prentice-Hall: New Jersey, 1997.
- 52 Aronson J. A pragmatic view of thematic analysis. Qualitative Rep 1994, 2(1).
- 53 Foster V, Mourato S. Testing for consistency in contingent raking experiments. J Environ Econ Manage 2002; 44: 302–328.
- 54 Johnson FR, Desvousges WH. Estimating stated preferences with rated-pair data: Environmental, Health and Employment effects of Energy Programs. J Environ Econ Manage 1997; 34(1): 79–99.
- 55 Saelensminde K. The impact of choice inconsistencies in stated choice studies. Environ Resource Econ 2002; 23: 403–420.
- 56 Tversky A. Intransitivity of preferences. Psychol Rev 1969; 76: 31–48.
- 57 Fishburn PC. Intransitive indifference in preference theory: a survey. Oper Res 1970; 18: 207–228.
- 58 Simonson I. Choice based on reasons: the case of attraction and compromise effects. J Consumer Res 1989; 16: 158–174.
- 59 Drolet AL, Itamar S, Amos T. Indifference curves that travel with the choice set. Market Lett 2000; 11: 199–209.
10.1023/A:1008198925117 Google Scholar
- 60 Zwerina K, Huber J, Kuhfeld W. A general method for constructing efficient choice designs, 1996. SAS Working Paper. http://support.sas.com/techsup/technote/ts694e.pdf
- 61 Maddala T, Phillips KA, Johnson FR. An experiment on simplifying conjoint analysis designs for measuring preferences. Health Econ 2003; 12: 1035–1047.
- 62 Severin V. Comparing statistical, respondent efficiency in choice experiments. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of marketing, University of Sydney, 2001.
- 63 Mazzotta M, Opaluch J. Decision making when choices are complex: a test of Heiner's Hypothesis. Land Econ 1995; 71(4): 500–515.
- 64 Louviere JJ. What if consumer experiments impact variances as well as means. J Consumer Res 2001; 28: 506–510.
- 65 Louviere J, Street D, Carson, Ainslie A et al. Dissecting the random component of utility. Market Lett 2002; 13(3): 177–193.
- 66 Cameron T, Poe G, Ethier R, Schulze W. Alternative non-market value-elicitation methods: are the underlying preferences the same? J Environ Econ Manage 2002; 44: 391–425.
- 67 Ryan M, San Miguel F. Revisiting the axiom of completeness in health care. Health Econ 2003, 12(4): 293–308.
- 68 Slovic P. The construction of preference. Am Psychol 1995; 50: 364–371.
- 69 Ericcson KA, Simon HA. Protocol Analysis. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1993.
