MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1647946654

Comparing forced and unforced choices in a choice experiment: the role of reference dependent preferences

2013· article· en· W1647946654 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony Scott, Julia Witt

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Choice Modelling Conference 2013 · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespondentMultinomial logistic regressionChoice setTwo-alternative forced choiceDiscrete choiceSet (abstract data type)EconometricsEconomicsStatus quo biasStatus quoLoss aversionMicroeconomicsMathematicsComputer scienceStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the discrete choice experiment literature, it has been argued that the choice sets from which respondents choose should include an unforced choice because this is more realistic and accounts for status quo bias. However, we propose a much stronger set of arguments for preferring to use unforced choices where relevant. These relate to the concepts of loss aversion and reference dependent preferences from prospect theory. The introduction of a third alternative representing the respondent’s current situation changes the reference point, which may be different for each respondent. This, in turn, changes the size of any losses or gains when comparing Job A or Job B with their current situation, and since losses are valued more than gains, affects the marginal utility of each attribute. The aim of this paper is to test this using two separate discrete choice experiments, one examining choices for nursing jobs, and one examining choices for GP jobs. Each experiment includes both a forced choice (which job do you prefer, A or B) followed by an unforced choice (which job would you choose, A or B or current job) for each choice set. The levels for the current job are constructed from responses to other questions in the survey. This enables us to directly compare the results of the forced and unforced choices for the same individual. We use a generalised multinomial logit model to account for the effects of scale. On average, the introduction of the status quo option led to respondents more likely experiencing losses than gains, due to status quo bias. This corresponded to the marginal utilities being generally higher in the unforced choice model, confirming the well-known finding that losses are valued more than gains. Including an unforced choice in DCEs is necessary (when appropriate) not only for the purposes of ‘realism’, but also because they produce different marginal utilities due to loss aversion.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.244
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.526
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2440.526
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0080.013
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.153
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.099 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Choice Modelling Conference 2013Same topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207