评估在离散选择实验中激发感知现状信息作为提高调查参与度和提高偏好估计准确性的工具的作用

IF 2.3 Q2 ECONOMICS
Marios Zachariou, Diane Burgess, Catherine Glass, Graham Finney
{"title":"评估在离散选择实验中激发感知现状信息作为提高调查参与度和提高偏好估计准确性的工具的作用","authors":"Marios Zachariou, Diane Burgess, Catherine Glass, Graham Finney","doi":"10.1007/s10018-024-00409-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Recent advancements in choice modelling practice include the embedding of individual heterogeneity in the modelling procedure by matching subjective perceptions about the status quo with experimentally designed choice cards. Beyond potentially mitigating bias in welfare estimations, we argue that the process of eliciting status quo information increases the engagement of respondents with the survey, rendering them more prepared to receive context-specific information and conduct hypothetical trade-offs. Moreover, it enables the researcher to utilise the perceived status quo information to provide choice sets that are specific to each respondent. To assess the gains of the practice, we ran a choice experiment survey with two separate samples that followed distinct preference elicitation procedures, the main difference being whether respondents were asked or not to state their perceived status quo prior to or following the choice task. By conducting independent hypothesis testing for each sample, we found that respondents who were asked to state their perceptions prior to the choice task made likely better use of the provided information while their decision-making was less likely to be governed by an anti-status quo effect. On the other hand, respondents who did not state their perceptions prior to the choice task made inconsistent choices, particularly by opting for scenarios inferior to their perceived status quo.</p>","PeriodicalId":46150,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Economics and Policy Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the elicitation of perceived status quo information as a tool to increase survey engagement and enhance accuracy of preference estimates in discrete choice experiments\",\"authors\":\"Marios Zachariou, Diane Burgess, Catherine Glass, Graham Finney\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10018-024-00409-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Recent advancements in choice modelling practice include the embedding of individual heterogeneity in the modelling procedure by matching subjective perceptions about the status quo with experimentally designed choice cards. Beyond potentially mitigating bias in welfare estimations, we argue that the process of eliciting status quo information increases the engagement of respondents with the survey, rendering them more prepared to receive context-specific information and conduct hypothetical trade-offs. Moreover, it enables the researcher to utilise the perceived status quo information to provide choice sets that are specific to each respondent. To assess the gains of the practice, we ran a choice experiment survey with two separate samples that followed distinct preference elicitation procedures, the main difference being whether respondents were asked or not to state their perceived status quo prior to or following the choice task. By conducting independent hypothesis testing for each sample, we found that respondents who were asked to state their perceptions prior to the choice task made likely better use of the provided information while their decision-making was less likely to be governed by an anti-status quo effect. On the other hand, respondents who did not state their perceptions prior to the choice task made inconsistent choices, particularly by opting for scenarios inferior to their perceived status quo.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46150,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Economics and Policy Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Economics and Policy Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-024-00409-0\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Economics and Policy Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-024-00409-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

选择建模实践的最新进展包括,通过将对现状的主观认知与实验设计的选择卡相匹配,将个体异质性嵌入建模程序。除了有可能减轻福利估算的偏差外,我们还认为,获取现状信息的过程能提高受访者对调查的参与度,使他们更愿意接受特定背景信息并进行假设性权衡。此外,它还使研究人员能够利用感知到的现状信息,为每个受访者提供特定的选择集。为了评估这种做法的收益,我们对两个不同的样本进行了选择实验调查,这两个样本遵循不同的偏好激发程序,主要区别在于是否要求受访者在选择任务之前或之后说明他们的感知现状。通过对每个样本进行独立的假设检验,我们发现,在选择任务之前被要求说明其看法的受访者可能会更好地利用所提供的信息,同时他们的决策不太可能受到反现状效应的影响。另一方面,没有在选择任务前说明自己看法的受访者则做出了不一致的选择,尤其是选择了不如他们所认为的现状的方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Assessing the elicitation of perceived status quo information as a tool to increase survey engagement and enhance accuracy of preference estimates in discrete choice experiments

Assessing the elicitation of perceived status quo information as a tool to increase survey engagement and enhance accuracy of preference estimates in discrete choice experiments

Recent advancements in choice modelling practice include the embedding of individual heterogeneity in the modelling procedure by matching subjective perceptions about the status quo with experimentally designed choice cards. Beyond potentially mitigating bias in welfare estimations, we argue that the process of eliciting status quo information increases the engagement of respondents with the survey, rendering them more prepared to receive context-specific information and conduct hypothetical trade-offs. Moreover, it enables the researcher to utilise the perceived status quo information to provide choice sets that are specific to each respondent. To assess the gains of the practice, we ran a choice experiment survey with two separate samples that followed distinct preference elicitation procedures, the main difference being whether respondents were asked or not to state their perceived status quo prior to or following the choice task. By conducting independent hypothesis testing for each sample, we found that respondents who were asked to state their perceptions prior to the choice task made likely better use of the provided information while their decision-making was less likely to be governed by an anti-status quo effect. On the other hand, respondents who did not state their perceptions prior to the choice task made inconsistent choices, particularly by opting for scenarios inferior to their perceived status quo.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: As the official journal of the Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies and the official journal of the Asian Association of Environmental and Resource Economics, it provides an international forum for debates among diverse disciplines such as environmental economics, environmental policy studies, and related fields. The main purpose of the journal is twofold: to encourage (1) integration of theoretical studies and policy studies on environmental issues and (2) interdisciplinary works of environmental economics, environmental policy studies, and related fields on environmental issues. The journal also welcomes contributions from any discipline as long as they are consistent with the above stated aims and purposes, and encourages interaction beyond the traditional schools of thought.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信