Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:12:04.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analysis of Cardinal and Ordinal Assumptions in Conjoint Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

R. Wes Harrison ,
Jeffrey Gillespie  and
Deacue Fields
R. Wes Harrison
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness at the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Jeffrey Gillespie
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness at the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Deacue Fields
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology at Auburn University in Auburn, Alabama
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Of twenty-three agricultural economics conjoint analyses conducted between 1990 and 2001, seventeen used interval-rating scales, with estimation procedures varying widely. This study tests cardinality assumptions in conjoint analysis when interval-rating scales are used, and tests whether the ordered probit or two-limit tobit model is the most valid. Results indicate that cardinality assumptions are invalid, but estimates of the underlying utility scale for the two models do not differ. Thus, while the ordered probit model is theoretically more appealing, the two-limit tobit model may be more useful in practice, especially in cases with limited degrees of freedom, such as with individual-level conjoint models.

Keywords

ordered probittwo-limit probitconjoint analysiscardinality
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , October 2005 , pp. 238 - 252
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alchian, A.A. 1953. “The Meaning of Utility Measurement.” American Economic Review 43(1): 26–50.Google Scholar
Baker, G.A., and Crosbie, P.J. 1993. “Measuring Food Safety Preferences: Identifying Consumer Segments.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 18(2): 277–287.Google Scholar
Blalock, H.M. 1979. Social Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Boyle, K., Holmes, T.P., Teisl, M., and Roe, B. 2001. “A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83(2): 441–454.Google Scholar
Dennis, D.F. 1998. “Analyzing Public Inputs to Multiple Objective Decisions on National Forests Using Conjoint Analysis.” Forest Science 44(3): 421–429.Google Scholar
Fisher, I. 1918. “Is Utility the Most Suitable Term for the Concept It Is Used to Denote?” American Economic Review 8(2): 335–337.Google Scholar
Gan, C., and Luzar, E.J. 1993. “A Conjoint Analysis of Waterfowl Hunting in Louisiana.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 25(2): 36–45.Google Scholar
Gillespie, J., Taylor, G., Schupp, A., and Wirth, F. 1998. “Opinions of Professional Buyers Toward a New, Alternative Red Meat: Ostrich.” Agribusiness 14(3): 247–256.Google Scholar
Gineo, W.M. 1990. “A Conjoint/Logit Analysis of Nursery Stock Purchases.” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 19(1): 49–61.Google Scholar
Greene, W.H. 2000. Econometric Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Halbrendt, C.K., Bacon, R.J., and Pesek, J. 1992. “Weighted Least Squares Analysis for Conjoint Studies: The Case of Hybrid Striped Bass.” Agribusiness 8(2): 187–198.3.0.CO;2-#>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halbrendt, C.K., Wirth, F.F., and Vaughn, G.F. 1991. “Conjoint Analysis of the Mid-Atlantic Food-Fish Market for Farm-Raised Hybrid Striped Bass.” Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 23(1): 155–163.Google Scholar
Harrison, R.W., Ozayan, A., and Meyers, S.P. 1998. “A Conjoint Analysis of New Food Products Processed from Underutilized Small Crawfish.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 30(2): 257–265.Google Scholar
Harrison, R.W. Stringer, T., and Prinyawiwatkul, W. 2002. “An Analysis of Consumer Preferences for Value-Added Seafood Products Derived from Crawfish.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 31(2): 157–170.Google Scholar
Henderson, J.M., and Quandt, R. 1980. Microeconomic Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Hobbs, J.E. 1996. “Transaction Costs and Slaughter Cattle Procurement: Processors Selection of Supply Channels.” Agribusiness 12(6): 509–523.Google Scholar
Holland, D., and Wessells, C.R. 1998. “Predicting Consumer Preferences for Fresh Salmon: The Influence of Safety Inspection and Production Method Attributes.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 27(1): 1–14.Google Scholar
Jevons, W.S. 1871. The Theory of Political Economy. London: McMillan.Google Scholar
Lin, B.H., Payson, S., and Wertz, J. 1996. “Opinions of Professional Buyers Toward Organic Produce: A Case Study of Mid-Atlantic Market for Fresh Tomatoes.” Agribusiness 12(1): 89–97.3.0.CO;2-L>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, J.S. 1997. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, J. 1990. “Conjoint Analysis of Deer Hunting.” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 19(2): 109–117.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, J. 1993. “A Comparison of Contingent Preference Models.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75(3): 593–603.Google Scholar
McKelvey, M.D., and Zavoina, W. 1975. “A Statistical Model for the Analysis of Ordinal Level Dependent Variables.” Journal of Mathematics and Sociology 4(1): 103–119.Google Scholar
Menger, C. 1981. Principles of Economics (translated by Dingwald, J. and Hoselitz, B.F.). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Miquel, F.S., Ryan, M., and McIntosh, E. 2000. “Applying Conjoint Analysis in Economic Evaluation: An Application to Menorrhagia.” Applied Economics 32(7): 823–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pareto, V. 1909. Manuel d'Economie Politique. Paris: V. Giard and E. Buere.Google Scholar
Prentice, B.E., and Benell, D. 1992. “Determinants of Empty Returns by U.S. Refrigerated Trucks: Conjoint Analysis Approach.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 40(1): 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, V.S., and Bush, R.J. 1998. “Measuring Softwood Lumber Value: A Conjoint Analysis Approach.” Forest Science 44(1): 145–157.Google Scholar
Robbins, L. 1932. An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. London: McMillan.Google Scholar
Roe, B., Boyle, K.J., and Teisl, M.F. 1996. “Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates of Compensating Variation.” Journal of Environmental Management 31(2): 145–159.Google Scholar
Silberberg, E. 1978. The Structure of Economics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Stevens, T.H., Barrett, C., and Willis, C.E. 1997. “Conjoint Analysis of Groundwater Protection Programs.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 26(2): 229–236.Google Scholar
Stevens, T.H., Dennis, D., Kittredge, D., and Rickenbach, M. 1999. “Attitudes and Preferences Toward Co-operative Agreements for Management of Private Forestlands in the Northeastern United States.” Journal of Environmental Management 55(2): 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stigler, G.J. 1950. “The Development of Utility Theory I.” Journal of Political Economy 58(3): 307–327.Google Scholar
Swallow, S.K., Opaluch, J.J., and Weaver, T.F. 2001. “Strength-of-Preference Indicators and an Ordered-Response Model for Ordinarily Dichotomous, Discrete Choice Data.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 41(1): 70–93.Google Scholar
Sy, H.A., Faminow, M.D., Johnson, G.V., and Crow, G. 1997. “Estimating the Values of Cattle Characteristics Using an Ordered Probit Model.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79(2): 463–476.Google Scholar
Sylvia, G., and Larkin, S.L. 1995. “Firm-Level Intermediate Demand for Pacific Whiting Products: A Multi-Attribute, Multi-Sector Analysis.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 43(3): 501–518.Google Scholar
Torgerson, W.S. 1958. Theory and Methods of Scaling. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
van Praag, B.M.S. 1991. “Ordinal and Cardinal Utility.” Journal of Econometrics 50(1): 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varian, H.R. 1947. Microeconomic Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
von Neumann, J., and Morgenstern, O. 1947. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (2nd edition). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
Yoo, D., and Ohta, H. 1995. “Optimal Pricing and Product-Planning for New Multiattribute Products Based on Conjoint Analysis.” International Journal of Production Economics 38(2): 245–253.Google Scholar
Zar, J.H. 1984. Biostatistical Analysis (2nd edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar