Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 400

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?

Lancsar, Emily, Louviere, Jordan·2006·Health Economics
DOI 10.1002/hec.1104
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Investigation of the ‘rationality’ of responses to discrete choice experiments (DCEs) has been a theme of research in health economics. Responses have been deleted from DCEs where they have been deemed by researchers to (a) be ‘irrational’, defined by such studies as failing tests for non‐satiation, or (b) represent lexicographic preferences. This paper outlines a number of reasons why deleting responses from DCEs may be inappropriate after first reviewing the theory underpinning rationality, highlighting that the importance placed on rationality depends on the approach to consumer theory to which one ascribes. The aim of this paper is not to suggest that all preferences elicited via DCEs are rational. Instead, it is to suggest a number of reasons why it may not be the case that all preferences labelled as ‘irrational’ are indeed so. Hence, deleting responses may result in the removal of valid preferences; induce sample selection bias; and reduce the statistical efficiency and power of the estimated choice models. Further, evidence suggests random utility theory may be able to cope with such preferences. Finally, we discuss a number of implications for the design, implementation and interpretation of DCEs and recommend caution regarding the deletion of preferences from stated preference experiments. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hec.1104

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 55 references

Cited by

See all 400

Metadata

Authors
Lancsar, E., & Louviere, J.
Venue
Health Economics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-04-13
Volume
15
Issue
8
Pages
797-811
ISSN
  • 1057-9230 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1050
DOI
10.1002/hec.1104
OpenAlex
W2015901745
Cited by
400
References
55
FWCI
23.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/hec.1104
The paper
Lancsar, E., & Louviere, J. (2006). Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Economics. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1104

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.