The No—Choice Alternative in Conjoint Choice Experiments

By Wagner A. Kamakura, R. Haaijer, M. Wedel. 2001

233 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Marketing

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/194c307a654d1e30a0fcc2badf362a7499f95c20

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

1. Riccardo Scarpa
2. D. Campbell
3. W. Hutchinson
4. David A. Hensher
5. John M. Rose
6. Stephane Hess
7. S. B. Olsen
8. J. Meyerhoff

In Marketing

1. D. Campbell
2. W. Hutchinson
3. Riccardo Scarpa
4. William L. Moore
5. John M. Rose
6. David A. Hensher
7. Stephane Hess
8. Michiel C. J. Bliemer

Citations in the corpus

• A REVIEW OF METHODS FOR MEASURING WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY (2017, unknown): “Often the respondents are provided a no-choice alternative, to indicate that they would not choose any of the presented product profiles (cf. DeSarbo et al., 1995; and Haaijer et al., 2001).”
• The Effect of Forced Choice on Choice (2003, unknown): “Relatedly, recent research by Haaijer, Kamakura, and Wedel (2001) indicates that the model specification in conjoint choice experiments is sensitive to the different reasons that underlie the selection of a no-choice option.”
• Benefit Estimates for Landscape Improvements: Sequential Bayesian Design and Respondents’ Rationality in a Choice Experiment (2005, background): “Previous studies have found theoretical reasons for status-quo bias (Samuelson and Zeckhauser 1988; Haaijer 1999; Haaijer, Kamakura, and Wedel 2001), and choice experiment applications in environmental economics (see, e.g., Lehtonen et al. 2003; Kontoleon and Yabe 2003) found these effects to be…”
• Incorporating Discontinuous Preferences into the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments (2008, background): “Previous studies have found theoretical reasons for status-quo bias (Samuelson and Zeckhauser, 1988; Haaijer et al., 2001), and discrete choice experiment applications in ecological and environmental economics (see, for example, Lehtonen et al., 2003; Kontoleon and Yabe, 2003; Scarpa et al., 2005)…”
• Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay (2014, unknown): “Specifying this RPL model with the additional error component addresses the status-quo bias (Haaijer, 1999; Haaijer et al., 2001; Hess and Rose, 2009; Samuelson and Zeckhauser, 1988) and state dependence (Hensher, 2008) effects.6”
• The no-choice option and dual response choice designs (2006, methodology): “The no-choice option was coded with a zero/one alternative specific constant (Haaijer et al., 2001).”