Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation

Journal of Health Economics

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 463-482

  Watson, Verity ^a   Ryan, Mandy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Anchoring; Anomalies; Calibration; Contingent valuation; Prospect theory

Indexed keywords

ANOMALY; CALIBRATION; CONTINGENT VALUATION; HEALTH CARE; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ARTICLE; CALIBRATION; CONTINGENT VALUATION; DOUBLE BOUNDED CONTINGENT VALUATION; HEALTH ECONOMICS; MODEL; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PROSPECT THEORY; PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; THEORY;

AIR AMBULANCES; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FINANCING, PERSONAL; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS; PATIENT SATISFACTION; STATE MEDICINE;

EID: 34147204055     PISSN: 01676296     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2006.10.009     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Alberini A. Efficiency vs bias of willingness to pay estimates: bivariate and interval data models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29 (1995) 169-180
2. Alberini A., Kanninen B., and Carson R. Modelling response incentive effects in dichotomous choice contingent valuation data. Land Economics 73 (1997) 309-324
3. Arrow K., Solow R., Portney P.R., Leamer E.E., Radner R., and Schuman H. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 58 (1993) 4601-4614
4. Asfaw A., and von Braun J. Innovations in health care financing: new evidence on the prospect of community health insurance schemes in the rural areas of Ethopia. International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics 5 (2005) 241-253
5. Bateman I.J., and Mawby J. First impressions count: interviewer appearance and information effects in stated preference studies. Ecological Economics 49 (2004) 47-55
6. Bateman I.J., Landford I.H., Jones A.P., and Kerr G.N. Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Resource and Energy Economics 23 (2001) 191-213
7. Bateman, I.J., Carson, R.T., Day, B., Hamemann, M., hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Özdemiroglu, E., Pearce, D.W., Sugden R., Swanson, J., 2002. Economic Valuation with Stated Preferencs: A manual. Edward Elgar.
8. Blumenschein K., Johannesson M., Yokoyama K.K., and Freeman P.R. Hypothetical versus actual willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment. Journal of Health Economics 20 (2001) 441-457
9. Blumenschien K., Johannesson M., Blomquist G.C., Liljas B., and O'Conor R.M. Experimental results on expressed certainty and hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Southern Economic Journal 65 (1998) 169-177
10. Boyle K., Bishop R.C., and Welsh M.P. Starting point bias in contingent valuation bidding games. Land Economics 61 (1985) 188-194
11. Boyle K., Welsh M.P., and Bishop R.C. The role of question order and respondent experience in contingent valuation studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 25 (1993) 45-55
12. Boyle K., Johnston F.R., and McCollum D.W. Anchoring and adjustment in single bounded, contingent valuation questions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79 (1997) 1495-1500
13. Braga J., and Starmer C. Preference anomalies, preference elicitation and the discovered preference hypothesis. Environmental and Resource Economics 32 (2005) 55-89
14. Cameron T., and Quiggan J. Estimation using contingent valuation data from dichotomous choice with follow up questionnaire. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 27 (1994) 218-234
15. Carson R., Groves T., and Machina M. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions-plenary address. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economics (EAERE). Oslo, Norway, June 1999 (1999)
16. Clarke P.M. Valuing the benefits of mobile mammographic screening units using the contingent valuation method. Applied Economics 32 (2000) 1647-1655
17. DeShazo J.R. Designing transactions without framing effects in iterative question formats. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43 (2002) 360-385
18. Diener A., O'Brien B., and Gafni A. Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Economics 7 (1998) 313-326
19. Dolan P., Cookson R., and Ferguson B. The effect of group discussions on the public's view regarding priorities in health care. British Medical Journal 318 (1999) 916-919
20. Donaldson C., Thomas R., and Torgenson D. Validity of open-ended and payment scale approaches to eliciting willingness to pay. Applied Economics 29 (1997) 79-84
21. Drummond M., Sculpher M., Torrance G., O'Brien B., and Stoddart G. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. third ed. (2005), Oxford University Press
22. 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
23. Gregory R., Lichtenstien S., and Slovic P. Valuing environmental resources: a constructive approach. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7 (1993) 171-197
24. Hackl F., and Pruckner G.J. Warm glow, free riding and vehicle neutrality in a health-related contingent valuation study. Health Economics 14 (2005) 293-306
25. Hanemann W.M. Welfare evaluations in a contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66 (1984) 332-341
26. Hanemann W.M., Loomis J., and Kanninen B. Statistical efficiency of double bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73 (1991) 1255-1263
27. Hanemann W.M., and Kanninen B. The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data. In: Bateman I.J., and Willis K.G. (Eds). Valuing Environmental Preferences: theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, Eu and Developing countries (1999)
28. Hanley N., and Shogren J.F. Is cost-benefit analysis anomaly-proof?. Environmental and Resource Economics 32 (2005) 13-34
29. Herriges J.A., and Shogren J.F. Starting point bias in dichotomous choice with follow up questioning. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30 (1996) 112-131
30. Hoehn J., and Randall A. A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 14 (1987) 112-131
31. Holmes T.P., and Kramer R.A. An independent sample test of yea-saying and starting point bias in dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29 (1995) 121-132
32. Hunter J.E. The desperate need for replications. Journal of Consumer Research 28 (2001) 149-158
33. Johannesson M., Liljas B., and Johansson P.O. An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice valuation questions and real purchase decisions. Applied Economics 30 (1998) 643-647
34. Johnston, D., Ryan, M., 2002. Air ambulances: public perceptions of value. Report prepared for Department of Health.
35. Kahneman D., and Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47 (1979) 263-291
36. Kanninen B. Bias in discrete response contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28 (1995) 114-125
37. Kennedy C.A. Revealed preference valuation compared to contingent valuation: radon-induced lung cancer prevention. Health Economics 11 (2002) 585-598
38. Kenyon W., Hanley N., and Nevin C. Citizens' juries: an aid to environmental valuation?. Environmental Planning C: Government and Policy 19 (2001) 557-566
39. Kenyon W., Kevin C., and Hanley N. Enhancing environmental decision-making using citizens' juries. Local Environmental 8 (2003) 221-232
40. Klose T. The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy 47 (1999) 97-123
41. Liu J.T., Hammitt J.K., Wang J.D., and Liu J.L. Mother's willingness to pay for her own and her child's health: a contingent valuation study in Taiwan. Health Economics 9 (2000) 319-326
42. MacMillan D., Philip L., Hanley H.D., and Alvarez-Farizo B. Valuing non-market benefits of wild goose conservation: a comparison of interview and group-based approaches. Ecological Economics 43 (2002) 49-59
43. MacMillan, D., Hanley, N., Lienhoop, N. Contingent valuation: environmental polling or preference engine? Ecological Economics, in press.
44. McCollum D.W., and Boyle K.J. The effect of respondent experience/knowledge in the elicitation of contingent values: an investigation of convergent validity, procedural invariance and reliability. Environmental and Resource Economics 30 (2005) 23-33
45. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Zarembka P. (Ed). Frontiers in Econometrics (1974), Academic Press, New York
46. McFadden D. Contingent valuation and social choice. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76 (1994) 689-708
47. Prosser L.A., Bridges, C.B., Uyeki, T.M., Rego, V.H., Ray, G.T., Meltzer, M.I., Schwartz, B., Thompson, W.W., Fukuda, K., Lieu, T.A., 2005. Values for preventing influenza-related morbidity and vaccine adverse events in children. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 3.
48. Roach B., Boyle K., Bergstrom J.C., and Reiling S.D. The effect of instream flows on whitewater visitation and consumer surplus: a contingent valuation application to the Dead River Maine. Rivers 7 (1999) 11-20
49. Ready R.C., Buzby J.C., and Hu D. Differences between continuous and discrete contingent value estimates. Land Economics 72 (1996) 397-411
50. 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
51. San Miguel F., and Ryan M. Revisiting the axiom of completeness in healthcare. Health Economics 12 (2003) 295-307
52. Smith R.D. Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care: a critical assessment. Health Economics 12 (2003) 609-628
53. Smith R.D. Its not just what you do it's the way that you do it: the effect of different payment card formats and survey administration on willingness to pay for health gain. Health Economics 15 (2006) 281-293
54. Sugden R. Alternatives to the neo-classical theory of choice. In: Bateman I.J., and Willis K.G. (Eds). Valuing Environmental Preferences: theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, Eu, and Developing Countries (1999), Oxford University Press
55. Sugden R. Anomalies and stated preference techniques: a framework for coping strategies. Environmental and Resource Economics 32 (2005) 1-12
56. Whitehead J.C. Incentive compatibility and starting point bias in iterative valuation questions. Land Economics 78 (2002) 285-297