The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load
Abstract
The popularity of stated choice (SC) experiments has produced many design strategies in which researchers use increasingly more ‘complex’ choice settings to study choice behaviour. When the amount of information to assess increases, we wonder how an individual handles such information in making a choice. Defining the amount of information as the number of attributes associated with each choice set, we investigate how this information is processed as we vary its ‘complexity’. Four ordered heterogeneous logit models are developed, each for an SC design based on a fixed number of attributes, in which the dependent variable defines the number of attributes that are ignored. We find that the degree to which individuals ignore attributes is influenced by the dimensionality of the SC experiment, the deviation of attribute levels from an experienced reference alternative, the use of ‘adding up’ attributes where feasible, the number of choice sets evaluated, and the personal income of the respondent. The empirical evidence supports the view that individuals appear to adopt a range of ‘coping’ strategies that are consistent with how they process information in real markets, and that aligning ‘choice complexity’ with the amount of information to process is potentially misleading. Relevancy is what matters. 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation
Train, K. E. (2001) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511805271 · Cited by 7,784
Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer
Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., & Greene, W. H. (2005) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511610356 · Cited by 1,823
Self-citation
Cited by
Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives
Rose, J. M., Bliemer, M. C. J., Hensher, D. A., & Collins, A. T. (2008) · Transportation Research Part B: Methodological · doi:10.1016/j.trb.2007.09.002 · Cited by 528
Self-citationYang, J.-C., Johnson, F. R., Kilambi, V., & Mohamed, A. F. (2015) · Journal of Choice Modelling · doi:10.1016/j.jocm.2015.09.001 · Cited by 77
Metadata
- Authors
- Hensher, D. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Econometrics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-09
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 861-878
- ISSN
- 0883-7252 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1255
- OpenAlex
- W2060493953
- Cited by
- 418
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 37.43
- 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: How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jae.877
- The paper
- Hensher, D. A. (2006). How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load. Journal of Applied Econometrics. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.877
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.