The causes of order effects in contingent valuation surveys: An experimental investigation

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Volumn 56, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 195-206

  Clark, Jeremy ^a   Friesen, Lana ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY   (New Zealand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Exclusive list; Order effects; Warm glow

Indexed keywords

ECONOMICS; MANAGEMENT;

CONTINGENT VALUATIONS; ENVIRONMENTAL GOODS; EXCLUSIVE LIST; EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS; INCENTIVE COMPATIBLE; ORDERING EFFECTS; SUBSTITUTION EFFECT; WARM GLOW;

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; LABORATORY METHOD;

EID: 54049105648     PISSN: 00950696     EISSN: 10960449     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jeem.2007.12.005     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. J. Andreoni, Impure altruism and donation to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving, Econ. J. 100 (401) (1990) 464-477.
2. I.J. Bateman, I.H. Langford, Budget-constraint, temporal, and question-ordering effects in contingent valuation studies, Environ. Plann. A 28 (1996) 1215-1228.
3. I.J. Bateman, A. Munro, B. Rhodes, C. Starmer, R. Sugden, Does part-whole bias exist? An experimental investigation, Econ. J. 107 (441) (1997) 322-332.
4. I.J. Bateman, A. Munro, B. Rhodes, C. Starmer, R. Sugden, A test of the theory of reference dependent preferences, Q. J. Econ. 112 (2) (1997) 479-505.
5. I.J. Bateman, M. Cole, P. Cooper, S. Georgiou, D. Hadley, G. Poe, On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity, J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 47 (2004) 71-93.
6. I.J. Bateman, A. Munro, G.L. Poe, Asymmetric dominance effects in choice experiments and contingent valuation, CSERGE Working Paper EDM 05-06, 2005.
7. G. Becker, M. DeGroot, J. Marschak, Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method, Behav. Sci. 9 (1964) 226-232.
8. J.R. Bettman, M.F. Luce, J.W. Payne, Constructive consumer choice processes, J. Consum. Res. 25 (1998) 187-217.
9. P. Bohm, J. Linden, J. Sonnegard, Eliciting reservation prices: Becker-DeGroot-Marschak mechanisms vs. markets, Econ. J. 107 (443) (1997) 1079-1089.
10. K. Boyle, M. Welsh, R. Bishop, The role of question order and respondent experience in contingent valuation studies, J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 25 (1993) S80-S99.
11. J. Braga, C. Starmer, Preference anomalies, preference elicitation and the discovered preference hypothesis, Environ. Resour. Econ. 32 (2005) 55-89.
12. D. Brookshire, R. d'Arge, W. Schulze, M. Thayer, Experiments in valuing public goods, in: V. Smith (Ed.), Advances in Applied Microeconomics, vol. 1, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1981.
13. R. Carson, Contingent valuation surveys and tests of insensitivity to scope, in: R. Kopp, W. Pommerhene, N. Schwartz (Eds.), Determining the Value of Non-Marketed Goods: Economic, Psychological and Policy Relevant Aspects of Contingent Valuation Methods, Kluwer, Boston, 1997 (Chapter 6).
14. R. Carson, N. Flores, W. Hanemann, Sequencing and valuing public goods, J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 36 (1998) 314-323.
15. R. Carson, R. Mitchell, Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys, J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 28 (1995) 155-173.
16. T. Cherry, S. Kroll, J. Shogren, The impact of endowment heterogeneity and origin on public good contributions: evidence from the lab, J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 57 (2005) 357-365.
17. J. Clark, House money effects in public good experiments, Exp. Econ. 5 (2002) 223-231.
18. D.L. Coursey, J.L. Hovis, W.D. Schulze, The disparity between willingness to accept and willingness to pay measures of value, Q. J. Econ. 102 (1987) 679-690.
19. J.C. Cox, D.M. Grether, The preference reversal phenomenon: response mode, markets and incentives, Econ. Theory 7 (1996) 381-405.
20. D.D. Davis, C.A. Holt, Experimental Economics, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1993.
21. W. Desvousges, F. Johnson, R. Dunford, K. Boyle, S. Hudson, K. Wilson, Measuring Nonuse Damages Using Contingent Valuation: An Experimental Evaluation of Accuracy, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1992.
22. W. Desvousges, F. Johnson, R. Dunford, K. Boyle, S. Hudson, K. Wilson, Measuring natural resource damages with contingent valuation: tests of validity and reliability, in: J.A. Hausman (Ed.), Contingent Valuation: a Critical Assessment, North Holland Publishers, Amsterdam, 1993.
23. P. Diamond, J. Hausman, G. Leonard, M. Denning, Does contingent valuation measure preferences? Experimental evidence, in: J. Hausman (Ed.), Contingent Valuation: a Critical Assessment, North Holland Publishers, Amsterdam, 1993.
24. C.C. Eckel, P.J. Grossman, Rebate versus matching: does how we subsidize charitable contributions matter?, J. Pub. Econ. 87 (2003) 681-701.
25. D.M. Grether, C.R. Plott, Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon, Am. Econ. Rev. 69 (1979) 623-638.
26. J.K. Hammitt, J.D. Graham, Willingness to pay for health protection: inadequate sensitivity to probability, J. Risk Uncertain. 8 (1999) 33-62.
27. G.W. Harrison, Valuing public goods with the contingent valuation method: a critique of Kahneman and Knetsch, J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 23 (1992) 248-257.
28. D.J. Hayes, J.F. Shogren, S.Y. Shin, J.B. Kliebenstein, Valuing food safety in experimental auction markets, Am. J. Agric. Econ. 77 (1995) 40-53.
29. T. Heberlein, M. Wilson, R. Bishop, N. Schaeffer, Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation, J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 50 (2005) 1-22.
30. C.K. Hsee, Less is better: when low-value options are valued more highly than high-value options, J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 11 (2) (1998) 107-121.
31. D. Kahneman, J. Knetsch, Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction, J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 22 (1992) 57-70.
32. D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1982.
33. D. Kahneman, J. Knetsch, R.H. Thaler, Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase Theorem, J. Polit. Econ. 98 (1990) 1325.
34. J. Knetsch, J. Sinden, Willingness to pay and compensation demanded: experimental evidence of an unexpected disparity in measures of value, Q. J. Econ. 99 (1984) 507-521.
35. S.D. Levitt, J.A. List, What do laboratory experiments tell us about the real world? Working Paper, 2006, accessed at: 〈http://pricetheory.uchicago. edu/levitt/Papers/jep%20revision%20Levitt%20&%20List.pdf〉.
36. J.A. List, Preference reversals of a different kind: the "more is less" phenomenon, Am. Econ. Rev. 92 (5) (2002) 1636-1643.
37. J.A. List, Does market experience eliminate market anomalies?, Q. J. Econ. 118 (1) (2003) 41-71.
38. J.A. List, Substitutability, experience, and the value disparity: evidence from the marketplace, J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 47 (3) (2004) 486-509.
39. J.A. List, Neoclassical theory versus prospect theory: evidence from the marketplace, Econometrica 72 (2) (2004) 615-625.
40. J.A. List, Young, selfish and male: field evidence of social preferences, Econ. J. 114 (492) (2004) 121-149.
41. J.A. List, C.A. Gallet, What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values?, Environ. Resour. Econ. 20 (2001) 241-254.
42. D. McFadden, Rationality for economists?, J. Risk Uncertain. 9 (1999) 73-105.
43. C. Noussair, S. Robin, B. Ruffieux, Do consumers really refuse to buy genetically modified food?, Econ. J. 114 (492) (2004) 102-120.
44. P.A. Nunes, E. Schokkaert, Identifying the warm glow effect in contingent valuation, J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 45 (2003) 231-245.
45. J.W. Payne, D.A. Schkade, W.H. Desvousges, C. Aultman, Valuation of multiple environmental programs, J. Risk Uncertain. 21 (1) (2000) 95-115.
46. C. Plott, Rational individual behaviour in markets and social choice processes: the discovered preference hypothesis, in: K. Arrow, E. Colombatto, M. Perlaman, C. Schmidt (Eds.), The Rational Foundations of Economic Behavior, Macmillan, London, 1996.
47. C.R. Plott, K. Zeiler, The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap, the "Endowment Effect," subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations, Am. Econ. Rev. 95 (2005) 530-545.
48. N.A. Powe, I.J. Bateman, Ordering effects in nested 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' contingent valuation designs, Ecol. Econ. 45 (2003) 255-270.
49. A. Randall, J. Hoehn, Embedding in market demand systems, J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 30 (1996) 369-380.
50. A. Randall, J. Hoehn, G. Tolley, The structure of contingent markets: some results of a recent experiment, Presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Economics Association, Washington, DC, 1981.
51. J.F. Shogren, S.Y. Shin, D.J. Hayes, J.B. Kliebenstein, Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept, Amer. Econ. Rev. 84 (1) (1994) 255-270.
52. I. Simonson, A. Tversky, Choice in context: tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion, J. Mark. Res. 29 (1992) 281-295.
53. V.K. Smith, Comment: arbitrary values, good causes, and premature verdicts, J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 22 (1992) 71-89.
54. R. Sugden, Public goods and contingent valuation, in: R.J. Kopp, W. Pommerhene, N. Schwartz (Eds.), Determining the Value of Non-Marketed Goods: Economic, Psychological and Policy Relevant Aspects of Contingent Valuation Methods, Kluwer, Boston, 1997 (Chapter 5).
55. A. Tversky, D. Kahneman, Loss aversion in riskless choices: a reference-dependent model, Q. J. Econ. 106 (4) (1991) 1039-1061.
56. W. Vickrey, Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders, J. Finance 16 (1961) 8-37.
57. T.H. Wonnacott, R.J. Wonnacott, Introductory Statistics for Business and Economics, third ed., Wiley, New York, 1984.