Ambivalent statements in contingent valuation studies: Inclusive response formats and giving respondents time to think

Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics

Volumn 51, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 91-107

  Svedsater, Henrik ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Environmental values; Imprecise preferences; Multiple bounded choice formats; Time to think

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 33846341132     PISSN: 1364985X     EISSN: 14678489     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8489.2007.00346.x     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Alberini, A., Boyle, K. and Welsh, M. (2003). Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45, 40-62.
2. Bachman, J.G. and O'Malley, P.M. (1984). Yea-saying, nay-saying, and going to extremes: Black-white differences in response styles, Public Opinion Quarterly 48, 491-509.
3. Blamey, R.K. (1998). Decisiveness, attitude expression and symbolic responses in contingent valuation surveys, Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization 34, 577-601.
4. Blamey, R.K., Bennett, J.W. and Morrison, M.D. (1999). Yes-saying in contingent valuation surveys, Land Economics 75, 126-141.
5. Cameron, T.A. (1991). Interval estimates of non-market resource values from referendum contingent valuation surveys, Land Economics 67, 413-421.
6. Champ, P.A., Bishop, R.C., Brown, T.C., and McCollum, D.W. (1997). Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 33, 151-162.
7. Converse, P.E. (1970). Attitudes and non-attitudes: Continuation of a dialogue, in Tufte, E.R. (ed.), The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, pp. 168-189.
8. Dubourg, W.R., Jones-Lee, M.W. and Loomes, G. (1994). Imprecise preferences and the WTP-WTA Disparity, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 9, 115-133.
9. Evans, M.F., Flores, N. and Boyle, K.J. (2004). A decision theoretic approach to modeling multiple-bounded uncertainty choice data, Working Paper, Center for Economic Analysis, Department of Economics, University of Colorado, Boulder.
10. Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication, Psychological Review 57, 271-282.
11. Fischhoff, B., Welch, N. and Frederick, S. (1999). Construal processes in preference assessment, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19, 139-164.
12. Gregory, R., Lichtenstein, S., Brown, T.C., Peterson, G.L. and Slovic, P. (1995). How precise are monetary representations of environmental improvements? Land Economics 71, 462-473.
13. Hanemann, W.M., Loomis, J. and Kanninen, B. (1991). Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72, 1255-1263.
14. Harton, H.C. and Latané, B. (1997). Information and thought-induced polarization: The mediating role of involvement in making attitudes extreme, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 12, 271-300.
15. Jagodzinski, W. and Kuhnel, S.M. (1988). Estimation of reliability and stability in single indicator multiple-wave models, Sociological Methods and Research 15, 219-258.
16. Kahneman, D., Ritov, I. and Schkade, D. (1999). Economic preferences or attitude expressions?: An analysis of dollar responses to public issues, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19, 203-235.
17. Kaplan, M.F. and Miller, C.E. (1977). Judgments of group discussion: effect of presentation and memory factors, Sociometry 40, 337-343.
18. Kaplowitz, M.D. and Hoehn, J.P. (2001). Do focus groups and individual interviews reveal the same information for natural resource valuation? Ecological Economics 36, 237-247.
19. Kruglanski, A.W. and Mayseless, O. (1987). Motivational effects in the social comparison of opinions, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53, 834-842.
20. Latané, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact, American Psychologist 36, 343-356.
21. Li, C.Z. and Mattsson, L. (1995). Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: An improved structural model for contingent valuation, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28, 256-269.
22. Loomis, J.B. (1989). Test-retest reliability of the contingent valuation method: A comparison of general population and visitor responses, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71, 76-84.
23. Nadeau, R. and Niemi, R.G. (1995). Educated guesses: The process of answering factual knowledge questions in surveys, Public Opinion Quarterly 59, 323-346.
24. Ready, R.C., Navrud, S. and Dubourg, W.R. (1999). How do respondents with uncertain willingness to pay answer contingent valuation questions? Paper presented at the 9th EAERE Annual Conference, 25-27 June 2001, Oslo, Norway.
25. Ready, R.C., Whitehead, J.C. and Blomquist, G.C. (1995). Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29, 181-196.
26. Schkade, D.A. and Payne, J.W. (1994). How people respond to contingent valuation questions: A verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26, 88-109.
27. Schwarz, N. (1994). Judgment in a social context: Biases, shortcomings, and the logic of conversation, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 26, 123-162.
28. Svedsäter, H. (2003). Economic valuation of the environment: How people make sense of contingent valuation questions, Land Economics 79, 122-135.
29. Teisl, M.F., Boyle, K.J., McCollum, D.W. and Reiling, S.D. (1995). Test-retest of contingent valuation with independent sample pretests and post-test control groups, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 77, 613-619.
30. Tesser, A. and Conlee, M.C. (1975). Some effects of time and thought on attitude polarization, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31, 262-270.
31. Vossler, C.A., Ethier, R.G., Poe, G.L. and Welsh, M.P. (2003). Payment certainty in discrete choice contingent valuation responses: Results from a field validity test, Southern Economic Journal 69, 886-902.
32. Welsh, M.P. and Poe, G.L. (1998). Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: Comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36, 170-185.
33. Whittington, D., Smith, V.K., Okorafor, A., Okore, A., Long Liu, J. and McPhail, A. (1992). Giving respondents time to think in contingent valuation studies: A developing country application, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22, 205-225.
34. Zaller, J. and Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences, American Journal of Political Science 36, 579-616.
35. Zimbardo, P.G. and Leippe, M.R. (1991). The Psychology of Attitude Change and Social Influence. McGraw-Hill Inc, New York.