EXPRESS: The More You Ask, the Less You Get: When Additional Questions Hurt External Validity

Researchers and practitioners in marketing, economics, and public policy often use preference elicitation tasks to forecast real-world behaviors. These tasks typically ask a series of similarly-structured questions. The authors posit that every time a respondent answers an additional elicitation question, two things happen: (1) they provide information about some parameter(s) of interest, such as their time preference or the partworth for a product attribute, and (2) the respondent increasingly adapts to the task—i.e., using task-specific decision processes specialized for this task that may or may not apply to other tasks. Importantly, adaptation comes at the cost of potential mismatch between the task-specific decision process and real-world processes that generate the target behaviors, such that asking more questions can reduce external validity. The authors used mouse- and eye-tracking to trace decision processes in time preference measurement and conjoint choice tasks: Respondents increasingly relied on task-specific decision processes as more questions were asked, leading to reduced external validity for both related tasks and real-world behaviors. Importantly, the external validity of measured preferences peaked after as few as seven questions in both types of tasks. When measuring preferences, less can be more.

Business and Social Science Students’ Course Preferences and Learning Approaches

The study examines university students’ course preferences and their relations to learning approaches, apparently for the first time, to gain insight how different course designs are experienced by students with different learning approaches. The data includes students from two universities and fields: business (n = 467) and social sciences (n = 313). The attributes in preference measurement were selected on the basis of previous research and focus groups discussions and choice-based conjoint analysis was used. The learning approaches were measured using Experiences of Teaching and Learning Questionnaire developed by Entwistle and Ramsden. Social science students valued more interesting, challenging and time-consuming courses than business students, who valued more relevant and easier courses requiring less time. Social science students scored higher in the deep approach. The relationship between preferences and approaches was strikingly similar in the two universities: strategic students prefer relevance and deep learners challenge in both universities. An exception was that interesting courses were related to deep learning among social science students, and to the surface approach among business students. Further studies should extend our understanding of what interesting means to different kinds of students. The results give tools to design courses that enhance students’ learning and offers new insights to learning approach research.

Preference measurement in health using experiments

This contribution has three objectives. First, it seeks to justify the use of the economic criterion, “Provision of health care in accordance with the preferences of current and potential patients” for guiding decisions concerning the adoption of costly innovation in health. Next, it proposes the measurement of these preferences in the guise of willingness to pay (WTP) values through Discrete Choice Experiments (DCEs). Third, it purports to examine two popular arguments against accepting lay persons´ preferences, viz. that they are unwilling or unable to express preferences with regard to health and health care, and that their preferences are unstable, depending on the current state of health. Both of these arguments are refuted by the findings of four DCEs designed to measure WTP for attributes of health insurance and of the treatment of diabetes, respectively [Zweifel in J Regul Econ 29(3): 319–332, 2006; MacNeil Vrooman and Zweifel in Eur J Health Econ 12(1): 87–95, 2011; Sennhauser and Zweifel in: Jakovlijevic M (ed.), Health Economics and Policy Challenges in Global Emerging Markets. NOVA Publishers, Hauppauge NY, 2016].

Research frameworks, methodologies, and assessment methods concerning the adaptive reuse of architectural heritage: a review

With the growing trend towards preserving global architectural heritage, the adaptive reuse of built heritage buildings is becoming increasingly popular; as commentators have noted, this popularity can in part be attributed to the economic, cultural, and social benefits they provide to urban communities. In considering adaptive reuse, urban developers and planners seek to reach an equilibrium in the battle between time and space. Both academically and practically, the adaptive reuse of heritage buildings requires compatible, appropriate, and scientific means for assessing built heritage assets; however, currently, research in this area is still relatively meagre. To address this gap, this paper investigates research frameworks, methodologies, and assessment methods that concern the adaptive reuse of architectural heritage. In this paper, we examine the current literature on the paradigms for applying mixed methodologies: the multi-criteria decision model (MCDM) and the preference measurement model (PMM). Specifically, in examining the extant literature, we explore the ways in which these methods are discussed, compared, and evaluated, and the positive functions of these methods are also highlighted. In addition, this review examines a range of cases to better clarify the research frameworks, methodologies, and assessment methods used in the study of the adaptive reuse of architectural heritage.

Employee Preferences

Understanding and delivering on employee preferences results in real business outcomes, such as more effective hiring, decreased attrition, and stronger customer service. The authors begin with an introduction to the literature on employee preferences, especially as related to the employee value proposition (EVP), employer branding, and person–organization and person–job fit. They advocate using direct preference measurement techniques such as ranking, point-allocation exercises, and conjoint surveys that require respondents to make trade-offs that reveal what matters most to them and supplementing these with qualitative techniques such as interviews, focus groups, and open-ended comments to provide additional context. The authors emphasize the importance of using the information collected to ensure that the EVP supports the organization’s strategy and will be credible to employees and candidates, while conveying what differentiates them from talent competitors.