Vol. 9 No. 2 (2020)
Original Research Article

The Role of Context Definition in Choice Experiments: a Methodological Proposal Based on Customized Scenarios

Fabio Boncinelli
University of Florence, Department of Agriculture, Food, Environment and Forestry - DAGRI, P.le delle Cascine 18, 50144 Florence
Caterina Contini
University of Florence, Department of Agriculture, Food, Environment and Forestry - DAGRI, P.le delle Cascine 18, 50144 Florence
Francesca Gerini
University of Florence, Department of Agriculture, Food, Environment and Forestry - DAGRI, P.le delle Cascine 18, 50144 Florence
Caterina Romano
University of Florence, Department of Agriculture, Food, Environment and Forestry - DAGRI, P.le delle Cascine 18, 50144 Florence
Gabriele Scozzafava
University of Florence, Department of Agriculture, Food, Environment and Forestry - DAGRI, P.le delle Cascine 18, 50144 Florence
Leonardo Casini
University of Florence, Department of Agriculture, Food, Environment and Forestry - DAGRI, P.le delle Cascine 18, 50144 Florence

Published 2020-11-23


  • choice-based conjoint,
  • choice modelling,
  • experimental design

How to Cite

Boncinelli, F., Contini, C., Gerini, F., Romano, C., Scozzafava, G., & Casini, L. (2020). The Role of Context Definition in Choice Experiments: a Methodological Proposal Based on Customized Scenarios. Wine Economics and Policy, 9(2), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.36253/web-7978


One of the most critical points for the validity of Discrete Choice Experiments lies in their capability to render the experiment as close to actual market conditions as possible. In particular, when dealing with products characterized by a large number of attributes, the construction of the experiment poses the issue of how to express the choice question providing sufficient information. Our study verifies the role of scenario definition in choice experiments and proposes a methodology to build customized scenarios by eliciting responses from interviewees on the main choice criteria, which makes it possible to render the conditions of the experiment more realistic. This methodology is applied to the case study of wine and is introduced by a systematic review of the Discrete Choice Experiments conducted on wine. The findings show that customized scenarios result in different preference estimates compared to the conventional approach. In particular, we found a significant decline in the importance of the price attribute, which could be attributed to a better definition of the product being evaluated. Moreover, the methodology is capable of gathering information on the decision-making process that would otherwise remain unobserved and that can be used for a better segmentation analysis.


Alba, J., Lynch, J., Weitz, B., Janiszewski, C., Lutz, R., Sawyer, A. Wood, S., 1997. Interactive home shopping: consumer, retailer, and manufacturer incentives to participate in electronic marketplaces. J. Marketing 61 (3), 38–53.
Alimova, N., Lillywhite, J.M., Hurd, B.H., Hadjigeorgalis, E., 2007. High desert wine: a discrete choice analysis of consumer preferences for New Mexican wine. J. Food Prod. Mark. 14 (1), 1–10.
Arentze, T., Borgers, A., Timmermans, H., DelMistro, R., 2003. Transport stated choice responses: effects of task complexity, presentation format and literacy. Transport. Res. E-Log. 39 (3), 229–244.
Barreiro-Hurlé, J., Colombo, S., Cantos-Villar, E., 2008. Is there a market for functional wines? Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for resveratrol-enriched red wine. Food Qual. Prefer. 19 (4), 360–371.
Ben-Akiva, M., McFadden, D., Train, K., 2019. Foundations of stated preference elicitation: consumer behavior and choice-based conjoint analysis. Found. Trends Econometrics 10 (1-2), 1–144.
Boncinelli, F., Contini, C., Romano, C., Scozzafava, G., Casini, L., 2017. Territory, environment, and healthiness in traditional food choices: insights into consumer heterogeneity. Int. Food Agribus. Man. 20 (1), 143–157.
Boncinelli, F., Dominici, A., Gerini, F. Marone, E., 2019. Consumers wine preferences according to purchase occasion: personal consumption and gift-giving. Food Qual. Prefer. 71, 270–278.
Casini, L., Corsi, A.M., Goodman, S., 2009. Consumer preferences of wine in Italy applying best-worst scaling. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 21 (1), 64–78.
Caussade, S., de Dios Ortúzar, J., Rizzi, L.I., Hensher, D.A., 2005. Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates. Transport. Res. B- Meth. 39 (7), 621–640.
Charters, S., Pettigrew, S., 2007. The dimensions of wine quality. Food Qual. Prefer. 18 (7), 997–1007.
Cicia, G., Cembalo, L., Del Giudice, T., Scarpa, R., 2013. Country-of-origin effects on Russian wine consumers. J. Food Prod. Mark. 19 (4), 247–260.
Contini, C., Romano, C., Scozzafava, G., Boncinelli, F., Casini, L., 2015. Wine consumption and sales strategies: the evolution of Mass Retail Trading in Italy. Wine Econ. Policy 4 (2), 116–127.
Corduas, M., Cinquanta, L. Ievoli, C., 2013. The importance of wine attributes for purchase decisions: a study of Italian consumers’ perception. Food Qual. Prefer. 28 (2), 407–418.
Corsi, A.M., Mueller, S. Lockshin, L., 2012. Let’s see what they have... What consumers look for in a restaurant wine list. Cornell Hosp. Q. 53 (2), 110–121.
Costanigro, M., Appleby, C. Menke, S.D., 2014. The wine headache: consumer perceptions of sulfites and willingness to pay for non-sulfited wines. Food Qual. Prefer. 31, 81–89.
Delmas, M.A., Lessem, N., 2017. Eco-premium or eco-penalty? Eco-labels and quality in the organic wine market. Bus. Soc. 56 (2), 318–356.
Escobar, C., Kallas, Z., Gil, J.M., 2018. Consumers’ wine preferences in a changing scenario. Brit. Food J. 120 (1), 18–32.
Gassler, B., 2015. How green is your ‘Grüner’? Millennial wine consumers’ preferences and willingness-to-pay for eco-labeled wine. J. Austrian Soc. Agr. Econ. 24, 131–140.
Ghvanidze, S., Velikova, N., Dodd, T. Oldewage-Theron, W., 2017. A discrete choice experiment of the impact of consumers’ environmental values, ethical concerns, and health consciousness on food choices: a cross-cultural analysis. Brit. Food J. 119 (4), 863–881.
Greene, W.H., Hensher, D.A., 2003. A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit. Transport. Res. B- Meth. 37 (8), 681–698.
Hensher, D.A. 2010. Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay. Transport. Res. B- Meth. 44 (6), 735–752.
Hertzberg, A., Malorgio, G., 2008. Wine demand in Italy: an analysis of consumer preferences. New Medit. 4, 40–46.
Hoyos, D., 2010. The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecol. Econ. 69 (8), 1595–1603.
Huang, A., Dawes, J., Lockshin, L., Greenacre, L., 2017. Consumer response to price changes in higher-priced brands. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 39, 1–10.
Hynes, S., Greene, W., 2016. Preference heterogeneity in contingent behaviour travel cost models with on‐site samples: A Random Parameter vs. a Latent Class Approach. J. Agr. Econ. 67, 348–367.
Islam, T., Louviere, J.J., Burke, P.F., 2007. Modeling the effects of including/excluding attributes in choice experiments on systematic and random components. Int. J. Res. Mark. 24 (4), 289–300.
Jarvis, W., Mueller, S., Chiong, K., 2010. A latent analysis of images and words in wine choice. Australas. Mark. J. 18 (3), 138–144.
Kallas, Z., Escobar, C., Gil, J.M., 2013. Analysis of consumers’ preferences for a special-occasion red wine: a dual response choice experiment approach. Food Qual. Prefer. 30 (2), 156–168.
Kallas, Z., Escobar, C., Gil, J.M., 2012. Assessing the impact of a Christmas advertisement campaign on Catalan wine preference using choice experiments. Appetite 58 (1), 285–298.
Lancaster, K.J., 1996. A new approach to consumer theory. J. Polit. Econ. 74 (2), 132–157.
Lancsar, E., Louviere, J., 2008. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making. Pharmaco Economics 26 (8), 661–677.
Liechty, J., Ramaswamy, V., Cohen, S.H., 2001. Choice menus for mass customization: an experimental approach for analyzing customer demand with an application to a web-based information service. J. Marketing Res. 38 (2), 183–196.
Lockshin, L., Jarvis, W., d’Hauteville, F., Perrouty, J.P., 2006. Using simulations from discrete choice experiments to measure consumer sensitivity to brand, region, price, and awards in wine choice. Food Qual. Prefer. 17 (3-4), 166–178.
Lontsi, D.A.D., Tempesta, T., Arboretti, R., Corain, L., Salmaso, L., Tomasi, D., Boatto, V., 2014. Caractéristiques du paysage et propension à acheter du vin: une expérience de choix. New Medit 13 (3), 31–39.
Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., Swait, J.D., 2000. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge University Press.
Mtimet, N., Albisu, L. M., 2006. Spanish wine consumer behavior: a choice experiment approach. Agribusiness 22 (3), 343–362.
Mueller Loose, S., Remaud, H., 2013. Impact of corporate social responsibility claims on consumer food choice: a cross-cultural comparison. Brit. Food J. 115 (1), 142–166.
Mueller, S., Lockshin, L., Louviere, J. J., 2010a. What you see may not be what you get: asking consumers what matters may not reflect what they choose. Marketing Lett. 21 (4), 335–350.
Mueller, S., Lockshin, L., Saltman, Y., Blanford, J., 2010b. Message on a bottle: The relative influence of wine back label information on wine choice. Food Qual. Prefer. 21 (1), 22–32.
Mueller, S., Osidacz, P., Francis, I. L., Lockshin, L., 2010c. Combining discrete choice and informed sensory testing in a two-stage process: can it predict wine market share?. Food Qual. Prefer. 21 (7), 741–754.
Nagle, T. T., Müller, G. 2017. The Strategy and Tactics of Pricing: A Guide to Growing More Profitably, New York, NY: Routledge.
Oczkowski, E., Doucouliagos, H., 2015. Wine prices and quality ratings: a meta-regression analysis. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 97 (1), 103–121.
Ouma, E., Abdulai, A., Drucker, A., 2007. Measuring heterogeneous preferences for cattle traits among cattle-keeping households in East Africa. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 89 (4), 1005–1019.
Palma, D., Ortúzar, J. D. D., Rizzi, L. I., Casaubon, G., 2018. Modelling consumers' heterogeneous preferences: a case study with Chilean wine consumers. Aust. J. Grape Wine R. 24 (1), 51–61.
Palma, D., Ortúzar, J. D. D., Rizzi, L. I., Guevara, C. A., Casaubon, G., Ma, H., 2016. Modelling choice when price is a cue for quality: a case study with Chinese consumers. J. Choice Model 19, 24–39.
Perrouty, J. P., d'Hauteville, F., Lockshin, L., 2006. The influence of wine attributes on region of origin equity: an analysis of the moderating effect of consumer's perceived expertise. Agribusiness 22 (3), 323–341.
Ryan, M., 2004. Discrete choice experiments in health care: nice should consider using them for patient centred evaluations of technologies. Briti. Med. J. 328, 360–361.
Sáenz-Navajas, M. P., Campo, E., Sutan, A., Ballester, J., Valentin, D., 2013. Perception of wine quality according to extrinsic cues: the case of Burgundy wine consumers. Food Qual. Prefer. 27 (1), 44–53.
Schmit, T. M., Rickard, B. J., Taber, J., 2013. Consumer valuation of environmentally friendly production practices in wines, considering asymmetric information and sensory effects. J. Agr. Econ. 64, 483–504.
Scozzafava, G., Contini, C., Costanigro, M., Casini, L., 2016. Consumer response to quality differentiation strategies in wine PDOs. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 8, 107–114.
Scozzafava, G., Gerini, F., Dominici, A., Contini, C., Casini, L., 2018. Reach for the stars: the impact on consumer preferences of introducing a new top-tier typology into a PDO wine. Wine Econ. Policy 7(2), 140–152.
Stasi, A., Bimbo, F., Viscecchia, R., Seccia, A., 2014. Italian consumers׳ preferences regarding dealcoholized wine, information and price. Wine Econ. Policy, 3(1), 54–61.
Swait, J., Adamowicz, W., 2001 Choice environment, market complexity, and consumer behavior: a theoretical and empirical approach for incorporating decision complexity into models of consumer choice. Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. 86 (2), 141–167.
Thiene, M., Scarpa, R., Galletto, L., Boatto, V., 2013. Sparkling wine choice from supermarket shelves: the impact of certification of origin and production practices. Agr. Econ. 44 (4-5), 523–536.
Toubia, O., Hauser, J. R., Simester, D. I., 2004. Polyhedral methods for adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis. J. Marketing Res. 41 (1), 116–131.
Train, K. E., 2009 Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Troiano, S., Marangon, F., Tempesta, T., Vecchiato, D., 2016. Organic vs local claims: Substitutes or complements for wine consumers? A marketing analysis with a discrete choice experiment. New Medit 15 (2), 14–22.
Williamson, P. O., Lockshin, L., Francis, I. L., Loose, S. M. 2016. Influencing consumer choice: short and medium term effect of country of origin information on wine choice. Food Qual Prefer 51, 89–99.
Williamson, P. O., Loose, S. M., Lockshin, L., Francis, L., 2017. Predicting wine repurchase: A case of low test-retest reliability in China. Int. J. Market Res. 59 (4), 471–494.
Wu, X., Hu, B., Xiong, J., 2019. Understanding heterogeneous consumer preferences in Chinese milk markets: a Latent Class Approach. J. Agrc. Econ. doi:10.1111/1477-9552.12327
Xu, P., Zeng, Y. C., 2014. Factors that affect willingness to pay for red wines in China. J. of Inter. Cons. Market. 26(5), 426–439.
Yu, J., Goos, P., Vandebroek, M., 2011. Individually adapted sequential Bayesian conjoint-choice designs in the presence of consumer heterogeneity. Int. J. Res. Market. 28 (4), 378–388.
Zhllima, E., Chan-Halbrendt, C., Zhang, Q., Imami, D., Long, R., Leonetti, L. Canavari, M., 2012. Latent class analysis of consumer preferences for wine in Tirana, Albania. J. Int. Food Agribus Market.24 (4), 321–338.