With a little help from an anchor. Discussion and evidence of anchoring effects in contingent valuation

Journal of Socio-Economics

Volumn 35, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 836-853

  van Exel, N J A ^a   Brouwer, W B F ^a   van den Berg, B ^a   Koopmanschap, M A ^a  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Anchoring; Contingent valuation; Health economics; Value of time

Indexed keywords

EID: 33747819164     PISSN: 10535357     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2005.11.045     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Ajzen I. Intuitive theories of events and the effects of base-rate information on prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35 5 (1977) 303-314
2. Arrow K., Solow R., Portney P.R., Learner E.E., Radner R., and Schuman H. Report of the NOAA panel of contingent valuation. Federal Register 58 (1993) 4601-4614
3. Bateman I., Munro A., Rhodes B., Starmer C., and Sugden R. A test of the theory of reference-dependent preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics 112 (1997) 479-505
4. Blumenschein K., Johannesson M., Yokoyama K.K., and Freeman P.R. Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment. Journal of Health Economics 20 (2001) 441-457
5. Bromley D.W. Property rights and natural resource damage assessments. Ecological Economics 14 (1995) 129-135
6. Brouwer W.B.F., Van Exel N.J.A., Koopmanschap M.A., and Rutten F.F.H. The valuation of informal care in economic appraisal: a consideration of individual choice and societal costs of time. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 15 1 (1999) 147-160
7. Brouwer W.B.F., van Exel N.J.A., van den Berg B., Dinant H.J., Koopmanschap M.A., and van den Bos G.A.M. The burden of care giving: evidence on objective burden, subjective burden and quality of life impacts in informal caregivers for patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism 51 4 (2004) 570-577
8. Brown T.C., and Gregory R. Why the WTA-WTP disparity matters. Ecological Economics 28 (1999) 323-335
9. Chapman G.B., and Johnson E.J. Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 79 20 (1999) 115-153
10. Cookson R. Incorporating psycho-social considerations into health valuation: an experimental study. Journal of Health Economics 19 (2000) 369-401
11. Dawes R.M. A message from psychologists to economists: mere predictability does not matter like it should (without a good story to append to it). Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 39 (1999) 29-40
12. Diamond P.A., and Hausman J.A. Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number?. Journal of Economic perspectives 8 4 (1994) 45-64
13. Diener A., O'Brien B., and Gafni A. Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Economics 7 4 (1998) 313-326
14. Donaldson C., Shackley P., and Abdalla M. Using willingness to pay to value close substitutes: carrier screening for cystic fibrosis revisited. Health Economics 6 (1997) 145-159
15. Drummond M.F., O'Brien B.J., Stoddart G.L., and Torrance G.W. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programs (1997), Oxford University Press, Oxford
16. Einhorn H.J., and Hogarth R.M. Decision making under ambiguity. In: Hogarth R.M., and Reder M.W. (Eds). Rational choice - the contrast between economics and psychology (1986), University of Chicago Press
17. Fischhoff B. Value elicitation: is there anything in there?. American Psychologist 46 8 (1991) 835-847
18. Frew E.J., Whynes D.K., and Wolstenholme J.L. Eliciting willingness to pay: comparing closed-ended with open-ended and payment scale formats. Medical Decision Making 23 (2003) 150-159
19. Frew E.J., Wolstenholme J.L., and Whynes D.K. Comparing willingness-to-pay: bidding game format versus open-ended and payment scale formats. Health Policy 68 3 (2004) 289-298
20. Gold M.E., Siegel J.E., Russell L.B., and Weinstein M.C. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine (1996), Oxford University Press, New York
21. Green D., Jacowitz K.E., Kahneman D., and McFadden D. Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods. Resource and Energy Economics 20 (1998) 85-116
22. Hanemann W.M. Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: how much can they differ?. American Economic Review 81 3 (1991) 635-647
23. Hanemann W.M. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 4 (1994) 19-43
24. Hogarth R.M. Judgement and Choice - The Psychology of Decision. 2nd ed. (1987), John Wiley & Sons
25. Jacowitz K.E., and Kahneman D. Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21 11 (1995) 1161
26. Johannesson M., and Jonsson B. Economic evaluation in health care: is there a role for cost-benefit analysis?. Health Policy 17 1 (1991) 1-23
27. Kahneman D., Diener E., and Scwarz N. Foundations of hedonic psychology: scientific perspectives on enjoyment and suffering (1999), Russell Sage Foundation, New York
28. Kahneman D., Knetsch J.L., and Thaler R.H. Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy 98 6 (1990) 1325-1340
29. Kahneman D., Slovic P., and Tversky A. Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases (1982), Cambridge University Press
30. Kahneman D., and Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 4 (1979) 263-291
31. Kanninen B.J. Bias in discrete response contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28 1 (1995) 114-125
32. Kartman B., Stålhammar N.O., and Johannesson M. Contingent valuation with an open-ended follow-up question: a test of scope and question order effects. Health Economics 5 6 (1996) 531-541
33. Kartman B., Stålhammar N.O., and Johannesson M. Contingent valuation with an open-ended follow-up question: a test of scope effects. Health Economics 6 6 (1997) 637-639
34. Klose T. The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy 47 2 (1999) 97-123
35. Liljas B., and Blumenschein K. On hypothetical bias and calibration in cost-benefit studies. Health Policy 52 (2000) 53-70
36. Loomes G., and Sugden R. Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. The Economic Journal 92 (1982) 805-824
37. Luzar E.J., and Cossé K.J. Willingness to pay or intention to pay: the attitude-behavior relationship in contingent valuation. Journal of Socio-Economics 27 3 (1998) 427-444
38. Machina M.J. Choice under uncertainty: problems solved and unsolved. Economic Perspectives 1 1 (1997) 121-154
39. Mitchell RC, Carson RT. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method Resources for the Future. New York 1989.
40. Nape S., Frykblom P., Harrisson G.W., and Lesley J.C. Hypothetical bias and willingness to accept. Economic Letters 78 (2003) 423-430
41. Olsen J.A. Aiding priority setting in health care: is there a role for the contingent valuation method?. Health Economics 6 (1997) 603-612
42. Olsen J.A., Donaldson C., and Pereira J. The insensitivity of 'willingness-to-pay' to the size of the good: new evidence for health care. Journal of Economic Psychology 25 (2004) 445-460
43. Olsen J.A., and Smith R.D. Theory versus practice: a review of 'willingness-to-pay' in health and health care. Health Economics 10 1 (2001) 39-52
44. Oostenbrink JB, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH. Guidelines for cost research, methods and recommended prices for economic evaluations in health care [in Dutch; Handleiding voor kostenonderzoek, methoden en richtprijzen voor economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg]. Amstelveen: College voor Zorgverzekeringen, 2000.
45. Phillips K.A., Homan R.K., Luft H.S., Hiatt P.H., Olson K.R., Kearney T.E., and Heard S.E. Willingness to pay for poison control centers. Journal of Health Economics 16 3 (1997) 343-357
46. Ryan M., Scott D.A., and Donaldson C. Valuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods. Journal of Health Economics 23 (2004) 237-258
47. Samuelson W., and Zeckhauser R. Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1 (1988) 7-59
48. Schkade D.A., and Payne J.W. Where do numbers come from? How people respond in contingent valuation questions. In: Hausman J.A. (Ed). Contingent valuation: a critical assessment (1993), North-Holland, New York
49. Schkade D.A., and Payne J.W. How people respond to contingent valuation questions: a verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for environmental regulation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26 1 (1994) 88-109
50. Schulz R., and Beach S.R. Caregiving as a risk factor for mortality: the caregiver health effects study. JAMA 282 23 (1999) 2215-2219
51. Sheffrin H., and Caldwell D. Determinants of the magnitude of willingness to accept relative to willingness to pay. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making 14 (2001) 87-105
52. Shiller R.J. Irrational exuberance (2000), Princeton University Press, Princeton
53. Silberman J., and Klock M. The behavior of respondents in contingent valuation: evidence on starting bids. Journal of Behavioral Economics 18 1 (1989) 51-60
54. Smith R.D. The discrete-choice willingness-to-pay question format in health economics: should we adopt environmental guidelines?. Medical Decision Making 20 (2000) 194-206
55. Smith R.D. Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care: a critical assessment. Health Economics 12 8 (2003) 609-628
56. Thaler R.H. Towards a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 1 (1980) 39-60
57. Tversky A., and Kahneman D. Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185 (1974) 1124-1131
58. Van den Berg B, Brouwer W, Van Exel J, Koopmanschap M., Economic valuation of informal care: the contingent valuation method applied to informal care giving. Health Economics 2004. in press.
59. Van Exel NJA, Van de Berg B, Koopmanschap MA, Van den Bos GAM, Brouwer WBF. Informal care in the Netherlands: a situational sketch of informal care-providers reached via Informal Care Centres. iMTA report 02.58b. Rotterdam: Erasmus MC, iMTA. 2002 (available from www.imta.nl/reports.html).
60. Van Exel N.J.A., Scholte op Reimer W.J.M., Brouwer W.B.F., Van den Berg B., Koopmanschap M.A., and Van den Bos G.A.M. Instruments for assessing the burden of informal care giving for stroke patients in clinical practice: a comparison of CSI, CRA, SCQ and self-rated burden. Clinical Rehabilitation 18 (2004) 203-214
61. Wegener D.T., Petty R.E., Detweiler-Bedell B.T., and Jarvis WB.G. Implications of attitude change theories for numerical anchoring: anchor plausibility and the limits of anchor effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 37 (2001) 62-69
62. Whynes D.K., Wolstenholme J.L., and Frew E. Evidence of range bias in contingent valuation payment scales. Helath Economics 13 (2004) 183-190
63. Yates J.F. Judgement and Decision Making (1990), Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs
64. Zhao J., and Kling C.L. A new explanation for the WTP/WTA disparity. Economic Letters 73 (2001) 293-300
65. Zhao J., and Kling C.L. Willingness to pay, compensating variation, and the cost of commitment. Economic Inquiry 42 3 (2004) 503-517