EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

How Closely Do Hypothetical Surveys and Laboratory Experiments Predict Field Behavior?

Jae Bong Chang, Jayson Lusk and Bailey Norwood ()

American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2007, vol. 91, issue 2, 518-534

Abstract: We compare the ability of three preference elicitation methods (hypothetical choices, nonhypothetical choices, and nonhypothetical rankings) and three discrete-choice econometric models (the multinomial logit [MNL], the independent availability logit [IAL], and the random parameter logit [RPL]) to predict actual retail shopping behavior in three different product categories (ground beef, wheat flour, and dishwashing liquid). Overall, we find a high level of external validity. Our specific results suggest that the nonhypothetical elicitation approaches, especially the nonhypothetical ranking method, outperformed the hypothetical choice experiment in predicting retail sales. We also find that the RPL can have superior predictive performance, but that the MNL predicts equally well in some circumstances. Copyright 2007, Oxford University Press.

Date: 2007
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (23)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01242.x (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:91:y:2007:i:2:p:518-534

Access Statistics for this article

American Journal of Agricultural Economics is currently edited by Madhu Khanna, Brian E. Roe, James Vercammen and JunJie Wu

More articles in American Journal of Agricultural Economics from Agricultural and Applied Economics Association Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().

 
Page updated 2025-03-22
Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:91:y:2007:i:2:p:518-534