Hurdle and Latent Class Approaches to Serial Non-Participation in Choice Models

  • Mike Burton
  • Dan Rigby


In repeated choice modelling studies, it is often the case that individuals always select the status quo option. Although this pattern may reflect considered choices, they may also be the result of alternative decisions about whether to participate in the choice process at all. Alternative methods of dealing with this behaviour, each with associated implications for estimates of economic values, are presented. In particular we consider the alternative strategies of excluding such individuals from the data, using hurdle models to explicitly model this group, and propose the use of latent class models to endogenously allow for different preference structures. An advantage of the latent class approach is that the form of the non-participation need not be defined in advance. These approaches are considered using UK choice experiment data on food choices where the attributes include genetic modification of food. The latent class approach reveals the presence of two forms of non-participation in the data.


Choice experiments Non-participation Hurdle Latent class GM 


  1. Akaike H (1973) Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Petrov BN, Csake F(eds) Second international symposium on information theory. Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, Hungary, pp 267–281Google Scholar
  2. Ben-Akiva M, Swait J (1986) The Akaike likelihood ratio index. Transp Sci 20(2): 133–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL (2002) Understanding heterogeneous preferences In random utility models: a latent class approach. Environ Resour Econ 23: 421–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bozdogan H (1987) Model-selection and Akaike’s information criterion (AIC): The general theory and its analytical extensions. Psychometrika 52: 345–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cairns J, van de Pol M, Lloyd A (2002) Decision making heuristics and the elicitation of preferences: being fast and frugal about the future. Health Econ 11: 655–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark KA (2003) Nonparametric model discrimination in international relations. J Conflict Resolut 47(1): 72–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Consumers Association (2002) GM dilemmas—consumers and genetically modified foods. Policy report, UK WhichGoogle Scholar
  8. Hensher DA (2006) How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load. J Appl Economet 21(6): 861–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1984) Choice, values and frames. Am Psychol 39(4): 341–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lancsar E, Louviere JJ (2006) Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?. Health Econ 15(8): 797–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Marris C, Wynne B, Simmons P, Weldon S (2001) Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnologies in Europe. Final report of the PABE research project.
  12. MORI (2003) GM food opposition continues, 3 July 2003.
  13. Pollak RA, Wales TJ (1991) The likelihood dominance criterion: a new approach to model selection. J Econom 47(2–3): 227–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rekola M (2003) Lexicographic preferences in contingent valuation: a theoretical framework with illustrations. Land Econ 79(2): 277–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rigby D, Young T, Burton M (2004) Consumer willingness to pay to reduce GMOs in food and increase the robustness of GM labelling. Report to UK Dept of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)Google Scholar
  16. Rokeach (1968) Beliefs, attitudes, and values: a theory of organization and change. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  17. Saelensminde K (2006) Causes and consequences of lexicographic choices in stated choice studies. Ecol Econ 59(3): 331–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schwarz G (1978) Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat 6(2): 461–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Swait J (2001) Choice set generation within the generalized extreme value family of discrete choice models. Transp Res Part B, pp 643–666Google Scholar
  20. Swait J, Ben-Akiva M (1987) Empirical test of a constrained choice discrete model: mode choice in São Paulo, Brazil. Transp Res B 21B: 103–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Swait J, Adamowicz W (2001) The influence of task complexity on consumer choice, a Latent class model of decision switching strategy. J Consumer Res 28: 135–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Train (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, NYGoogle Scholar
  23. von Roger H, Roger H, Massey DM, Adamowicz W (2005) Serial non-participation in repeated discrete choice models. Am J Agric Econ 87(4): 1061–1076CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Western AustraliaPerthAustralia
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsManchester UniversityManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations