EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

Are Results from Non-hypothetical Choice-based Conjoint Analyses and Non-hypothetical Recoded-ranking Conjoint Analyses Similar?

Faical Akaichi, Rodolfo Nayga and José M. Gil

American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2013, vol. 95, issue 4, 949-963

Abstract: Conflicting findings have been found in previous research that compared choice-based conjoint analysis and ranking conjoint analysis in a public good setting. The present paper revisits this issue for a private good in a non-hypothetical context using small and large choice sets. Our results suggest that in a small choice set setting, participants' preferences and willingness to pay are similar across the two conjoint analysis formats. However, in large choice sets, a divergence between the two conjoint analysis formats emerges. Hence, the two conjoint analysis formats can only be used interchangeably in small choice sets, not in large choice sets. Copyright 2013, Oxford University Press.

Date: 2013
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (11) Track citations by RSS feed

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ajae/aat013 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
Working Paper: Are Results from Non-Hypothetical Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis and Non-Hypothetical Recoded-Ranking Conjoint Analysis Similar? (2012) Downloads
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:95:y:2013:i:4:p:949-963

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 2020-06-30
Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:95:y:2013:i:4:p:949-963