基于点分配实验的偏好估计

IF 2.8 3区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS Journal of Choice Modelling Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jocm.2023.100430
Marion Collewet , Paul Koster
{"title":"基于点分配实验的偏好估计","authors":"Marion Collewet ,&nbsp;Paul Koster","doi":"10.1016/j.jocm.2023.100430","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Point allocation experiments are widely used in the social sciences. In these experiments, survey respondents distribute a fixed total number of points across a fixed number of alternatives. This paper reviews the different perspectives in the literature about what respondents do when they distribute points across options. We find three main alternative interpretations in the literature, each having different implications for empirical work. We connect these interpretations to models of utility maximization that account for point and budget constraints and investigate the role of budget constraints in more detail. We show how these constraints impact the regression specifications for point allocation experiments that are commonly used in the literature. We also show how a formulation of a taste for variety as entropy that had been previously used to analyse market shares can fruitfully be applied to choice behaviour in point allocation experiments.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46863,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Choice Modelling","volume":"48 ","pages":"Article 100430"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Preference estimation from point allocation experiments\",\"authors\":\"Marion Collewet ,&nbsp;Paul Koster\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jocm.2023.100430\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Point allocation experiments are widely used in the social sciences. In these experiments, survey respondents distribute a fixed total number of points across a fixed number of alternatives. This paper reviews the different perspectives in the literature about what respondents do when they distribute points across options. We find three main alternative interpretations in the literature, each having different implications for empirical work. We connect these interpretations to models of utility maximization that account for point and budget constraints and investigate the role of budget constraints in more detail. We show how these constraints impact the regression specifications for point allocation experiments that are commonly used in the literature. We also show how a formulation of a taste for variety as entropy that had been previously used to analyse market shares can fruitfully be applied to choice behaviour in point allocation experiments.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46863,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Choice Modelling\",\"volume\":\"48 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100430\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Choice Modelling\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534523000313\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Choice Modelling","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534523000313","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

积分分配实验在社会科学中有着广泛的应用。在这些实验中,调查对象在固定数量的备选方案中分配固定的总点数。本文回顾了文献中关于受访者在选项中分配分数时会做什么的不同观点。我们在文献中发现了三种主要的替代解释,每种解释对实证工作都有不同的含义。我们将这些解释与考虑点和预算约束的效用最大化模型联系起来,并更详细地研究预算约束的作用。我们展示了这些约束如何影响文献中常用的点分配实验的回归规范。我们还展示了以前用于分析市场份额的多样性偏好熵公式如何有效地应用于点分配实验中的选择行为。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Preference estimation from point allocation experiments

Point allocation experiments are widely used in the social sciences. In these experiments, survey respondents distribute a fixed total number of points across a fixed number of alternatives. This paper reviews the different perspectives in the literature about what respondents do when they distribute points across options. We find three main alternative interpretations in the literature, each having different implications for empirical work. We connect these interpretations to models of utility maximization that account for point and budget constraints and investigate the role of budget constraints in more detail. We show how these constraints impact the regression specifications for point allocation experiments that are commonly used in the literature. We also show how a formulation of a taste for variety as entropy that had been previously used to analyse market shares can fruitfully be applied to choice behaviour in point allocation experiments.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
31
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Latent class choice models with an error structure: Investigating potential unobserved associations between latent segmentation and behavior generation Model choice and framing effects: Do discrete choice modeling decisions affect loss aversion estimates? A consistent moment equations for binary probit models with endogenous variables using instrumental variables Transformation-based flexible error structures for choice modeling
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1