Direct preference measurement

In the direct measurement of preferences , the test persons are asked immediately about their preferences for a certain alternative (e.g. a political party, a product).

In the direct method for measuring preferences, a distinction can be made between open-ended question formats and closed-ended question formats. Furthermore, the direct methods for measuring preferences can be divided into hypothetical and incentive-compatible methods.

Direct hypothetical method for measuring preference

For example, a direct hypothetical method of measuring preference is a simple open-ended question of how subjects rate a particular alternative. In many cases, hypothetical methods are subject to a measurement error , the so-called hypothetical measurement error (English hypothetical bias). So-called incentive-compatible methods were developed to reduce or eliminate the measurement error.

Direct incentive-compatible procedure for measuring preferences

A direct incentive-compatible method for measuring preferences is the BDM mechanism . Here, the test persons are also asked about their preferences with the help of an open question. A lottery mechanism should then ensure that the stated preferences correspond to the true preferences of the test subjects. Theoretically it can be shown that it corresponds to the dominant strategy of a test person to state his or her true willingness to pay for a certain good ( Bayesian-Nash equilibrium ). Empirically, the BDM mechanism provides valid measurement results for some applications (e.g. in the case of low-priced goods such as a can of Coca-Cola). At the same time, the BDM mechanism is criticized for its probabilistic nature.

literature

Laura Manthey: Methods of Preference Measurement: Fundamentals, Concepts and Experimental Investigations . Books on Demand GmbH, Norderstedt 2007, ISBN 978-3-8334-9248-8 , (also: Jena, Univ., Diss., 2006).

Individual evidence

↑ Becker, GM, DeGroot, MH, Maraschak, J. (1964). Measuring Utility by a Single-Response Sequential Method. Behavioral Science, 9 (2).
↑ Ding, M. (2007). An Incentive-Aligned Mechanism for Conjoint Analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (2), 214-223.
^ Wertbroch, K., Skiera, B. (2002). Measuring Consumer Willingness to Pay at Point of Purchase. Journal of Marketing Research.
^ Kaas, KP, Ruprecht, H. (2006). Are the Vikrey Auction and the BDM Mechanism Really Incentive Compatible? - Empirical Results and Optimal Bidding Strategies in Cases of Uncertain Willingness-to-pay. SBR January 58, 2006, 37-55.

[1] Becker, GM, DeGroot, MH, Maraschak, J. (1964). Measuring Utility by a Single-Response Sequential Method. Behavioral Science, 9 (2).

[2] Ding, M. (2007). An Incentive-Aligned Mechanism for Conjoint Analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (2), 214-223.

[3] Wertbroch, K., Skiera, B. (2002). Measuring Consumer Willingness to Pay at Point of Purchase. Journal of Marketing Research.

[4] Kaas, KP, Ruprecht, H. (2006). Are the Vikrey Auction and the BDM Mechanism Really Incentive Compatible? - Empirical Results and Optimal Bidding Strategies in Cases of Uncertain Willingness-to-pay. SBR January 58, 2006, 37-55.