Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis
- Publisher:
- Public Knowledge Project - Open Journal Systems
- Publication Type:
- Journal Article
- Citation:
- Journal of Choice Modelling, 2010, 3 (3), pp. 57 - 72
- Issue Date:
- 2010-01
Open Access
Copyright Clearance Process
- Recently Added
- In Progress
- Open Access
This item is open access.
Full metadata record
| Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Louviere, JJ | en_US |
| dc.contributor.author | Flynn, TN | en_US |
| dc.contributor.author | Carson, R | en_US |
| dc.date.issued | 2010-01 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.citation | Journal of Choice Modelling, 2010, 3 (3), pp. 57 - 72 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1755-5345 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10453/15890 | |
| dc.description.abstract | We briefly review and discuss traditional conjoint analysis (CA) and discrete choice experiments (DCEs), widely used stated preference elicitation methods in several disciplines. We pay particular attention to the origins and basis of CA, and show that it is generally inconsistent with economic demand theory, and is subject to several logical inconsistencies that make it unsuitable for use in applied economics, particularly welfare and policy assessment. We contrast this with DCEs that have a long-standing, well-tested theoretical basis in random utility theory, and we show why and how DCEs are more general and consistent with economic demand theory. Perhaps the major message, though, is that many studies that claim to be doing conjoint analysis are really doing DCE. | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Public Knowledge Project - Open Journal Systems | en_US |
| dc.relation.ispartof | Journal of Choice Modelling | en_US |
| dc.relation.isbasedon | 10.1080/10810730.2013.811324 | en_US |
| dc.title | Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis | en_US |
| dc.type | Journal Article | |
| utslib.citation.volume | 3 | en_US |
| utslib.for | 1505 Marketing | en_US |
| pubs.embargo.period | Not known | en_US |
| pubs.organisational-group | /University of Technology Sydney | |
| pubs.organisational-group | /University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business | |
| pubs.organisational-group | /University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CENSOC - Study of Choice | |
| utslib.copyright.status | open_access | |
| pubs.consider-herdc | true | en_US |
| pubs.issue | 3 | en_US |
| pubs.volume | 3 | en_US |
Abstract:
We briefly review and discuss traditional conjoint analysis (CA) and discrete choice experiments (DCEs), widely used stated preference elicitation methods in several disciplines. We pay particular attention to the origins and basis of CA, and show that it is generally inconsistent with economic demand theory, and is subject to several logical inconsistencies that make it unsuitable for use in applied economics, particularly welfare and policy assessment. We contrast this with DCEs that have a long-standing, well-tested theoretical basis in random utility theory, and we show why and how DCEs are more general and consistent with economic demand theory. Perhaps the major message, though, is that many studies that claim to be doing conjoint analysis are really doing DCE.
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Download statistics for the last 12 months
Not enough data to produce graph