Kicking the habit is hard: A hybrid choice model investigation into the role of addiction in smoking behavior

Abstract

Use of choice models is growing rapidly in tobacco research. These models are being used to answer key policy questions. However, certain aspects of smokers' choice behavior are not well understood. One such feature is addiction. Here, we address this issue by modeling data from a choice experiment on the US smokers. We model addiction using a latent variable. We use this latent variable to understand the relationship between choices and addiction, giving attention to nicotine levels. We find that more addicted smokers have stronger preferences for cigarettes and are unwilling to switch to e‐cigarettes. Addicted smokers value nicotine in tobacco products to a much greater extent than those that are less addicted. Lastly, we forecast short‐term responses to lowering nicotine levels in cigarettes. The results suggest that current nicotine‐focused policies could be effective at encouraging addicted smokers to less harmful products and lead to substantial public health gains.

Modeling Quality and Price Perception in the Choice of Drinking Water in France: A Hybrid Choice Model Approach

“…More precisely, while it is essential to account for attitudes and perceptions, especially when individuals have a very poor or even erroneous knowledge of the objective reality, measurement error arises when directly incorporating indicators of attitudes and perceptions as error-free variables in standard choice models, as "attitudes can never be observed by an analyst" (Amaris et al, 2021). We argue, in line with Kim et al (2014), Buckell et al (2021), and Amaris et al (2021), that an appropriate econometric strategy, given the modeling problem at hand, is to estimate a hybrid choice model. Such an approach allows us to introduce quality and price perceptions in a drinking water choice model.…”

“…(2014), Buckell et al. (2021), and Amaris et al. (2021), that an appropriate econometric strategy, given the modeling problem at hand, is to estimate a hybrid choice model.…”

“…Second, endogeneity bias can occur when unobservable factors influence both respondents’ stated choices and their answers to attitudinal questions. Using a hybrid choice model allows to mitigate these issues, as widely acknowledged (Amaris et al., 2021; Buckell et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2014).…”

Endogeneity and Measurement Bias of the Indicator Variables in Hybrid Choice Models: A Monte Carlo Investigation

“…The exception is when identification of the effects of the latent variables is necessary for the aim of the study or the proper interpretation of the model. An example of the former is described by Buckell et al (2021) where the aim of the study was to identify the effects of the intensity of nicotine addiction, which is measured through several indicator variables. An example of the latter is consequentiality (Zawojska et al 2019), where the parameters of the choice model cannot be interpreted as true marginal utilities for individuals who do not perceive a given survey as consequential.…”

What Are the Priorities of Bureaucrats? Evidence From Conjoint Experiments With Procurement Officials

“…Please see Rakotonarivo et al (2016) for a methodological review. While discrete choice experiments have a number of similarities to conjoint experiments, a key difference is the fact that, unlike conjoints, they frequently make specific modeling assumptions regarding latent unobservable variables underlying stated choices (Buckell et al, 2021). In turn, conjoint experiments are agnostic about how respondents arrive at their decisions, be it through utility maximization or bounded rationality, when studying the causal determinants of stated preferences in hypothetical choice scenarios (Bettman et al, 1998).…”