Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40843314›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in communication2025

Discrete choice experiments: a primer for the communication researcher.

Reed M Reynolds, Lucy Popova, Bo Yang, Jordan Louviere, James F Thrasher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in communication, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Reed M ReynoldsCommunication Department, University of Massachusetts, Boston, MA, United States.
Lucy PopovaSchool of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, United States.
Bo YangDepartment of Communication, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States.
Jordan LouviereUniversity of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
James F ThrasherDepartment of Health Promotion, Education and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, United States.

Funding

Communicating about nicotine tobacco product standard in cigar productsR01CA239308 · NCI · GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY · PI Lyudmila Popova · 2019 to 2026
$3.8M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA239308
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Experiments are widely used in communication research to help establish cause and effect, however, studies published in communication journals rarely use discrete choice experiments (DCEs). DCEs have become a mainstay in fields such as behavioral economics, medicine, and public policy, and can be used to enhance research on the effects of message attributes across a wide range of domains and modalities. DCEs are powerful for disentangling the influence of many message attributes with modest sample sizes and participant burden. The benefits of DCEs result from multiple design elements including stimulus sets that elicit direct comparisons, blocked and/or fractional factorial structures, and a wide range of analytic options. Though sophisticated, the tools necessary to implement a DCE are freely available, and this article provides resources to communication scholars and practitioners seeking to add DCEs to their own methodological repertoire.

Indexed as

balanced incomplete block designsconjoint analysis (CA)discrete choice experimentsfractional factorial designsmessage evaluation tasks

Identifiers

PMID40843314
PMCPMC12366800

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.