Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis

Louviere, JJ; Flynn, TN; Carson, R

Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis

Louviere, JJ Flynn, TN Carson, R

Permalink

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.

Adobe PDF

Download full textAdobe PDF (385.14 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

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:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/15890