Choice Experiment Framing and Incentive Compatibility: observations from public focus groups

Abbie McCartney () and Jonelle Cleland ()
Additional contact information
Abbie McCartney: School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia
Jonelle Cleland: School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia
Authors registered in the RePEc Author Service: Abbie Rogers ()

Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports from Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University

Abstract: The hypothetical nature of choice modelling surveys makes it difficult to enforce incentive compatible properties. It is thought that bias may result through strategic behaviour and untruthful responses, given that the hypothetical choice scenarios and payment structure are not binding. This study examines three methods of addressing incentive compatibility through survey framing: (1) a statement of consequence; (2) use of an ‘honesty’ script that openly explains how the data are to be analysed and used; and (3) use of a provision rule that defines how survey outcomes relate to actual implementation. Focus groups, involving members of the public, were held to investigate participants’ reactions to the three framing treatments. The provision rule emerged as the preferred treatment in terms of being more realistic than the alternatives. The rule did not need to be 100% binding to have the desired effect of inducing realism. However, the participants did not believe that their responses to the choice scenarios would have changed between framing treatments. Empirical testing is required to determine if this is actually the case. Other reassuring results were found in relation to how participants interpreted the general choice scenario instructions, particularly in terms of answering questions independently and as an individual consumer. This provides evidence that respondents make choices in response to the questions as they are intended by the researcher.

Date: 2010-11
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
https://crawford.anu.edu.au/research_units/eerh/pdf/EERH_RR76.pdf (application/pdf)
Our link check indicates that this URL is bad, the error code is: 404 Not Found

Related works:
Working Paper: Choice Experiment Framing and Incentive Compatibility: observations from public focus groups (2010)
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:een:eenhrr:1076

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports from Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CAP Web Team ().