Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: Evidence from an empirical study

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Volumn 56, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 275-285

  Ladenburg, Jacob ^a   Olsen, Søren Bøye ^b  

^a DANISH INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENTAL RESEARCH   (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Choice experiment; Discovered preference hypothesis; Gender specific discrepancy; Starting point bias

Indexed keywords

CHOICE EXPERIMENT; CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; DICHOTOMOUS CHOICE CONTINGENT VALUATIONS; DISCOVERED PREFERENCE HYPOTHESIS; EMPIRICAL STUDIES; GENDER-SPECIFIC DISCREPANCY; MULTINOMIAL; PRICE LEVELS; PROBIT MODELS; SAMPLE DESIGNS; STARTING POINT BIAS; STARTING POINT BIASES;

EXPERIMENTS;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; GENDER; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; MOTORWAY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 56549087229     PISSN: 00950696     EISSN: 10960449     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jeem.2008.01.004     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Adamowicz W., Louviere J., and Williams M. Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. J. Environ. Econom. Manage. 26 3 (1994) 271-292
2. Akerlof G.A., and Dickens W.T. The economic consequences of cognitive dissonance. Amer. Econ. Rev. 72 3 (1982) 307-319
3. Akerlof G.A., and Kranton R. Economics and identity. Quart. J. Econ. 115 3 (2000) 715-753
4. A. Alberini, M. Veronesi, J. C. Cooper, Detecting starting point bias in dichotomous-choice contingent valuation surveys, FEEM Working Paper no. 119.05, September 2005.
5. F. Alpizar, F. Carlsson, O. Johansson-Stenman, Anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity: evidence from voluntary contributions to a national park in Costa Rica, Working Papers in Economics no. 245, Göteborg University, Sweden, February 2007.
6. Andreoni J. Giving with impure altruism: applications to charity and Ricardian equivalence. J. Pol. Econ. 97 6 (1989) 1447-1458
7. Andreoni J., and Vesterlund L. Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism. Quart. J. Econ. 116 1 (2001) 293-312
8. Ariely D., Loewenstein G., and Prelec D. Coherent arbitrariness: stable demand curves without stable preferences. Quart. J. Econ. 118 1 (2003) 73-105
9. Aronson E. The return of the repressed: dissonance theory makes a comeback. Psychol. Inquiry 3 4 (1992) 303-311
10. I. Bateman, D. Burgess, W.G. Hutchinson, D.I. Matthews, Preference learning versus coherent arbitrariness: NOAA guidelines or a learning design contingent valuation (LDCV), CSERGE Working Paper no. 18, 2006.
11. I. Bateman, B. Day, D. Dupont, S. Georgiou, J. Louviere, S. Morimoto, P. Wang, Preference formation in choice experiments (CE): task awareness and learning in the cognitive process, in: Thirteenth Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (EAERE), June 2004.
12. Becker G.S. A theory of social interactions. J. Pol. Econ. 82 6 (1974) 1063-1093
13. Bergstrom J.C., Stoll J.R., and Randall A. Information effects in contingent markets. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 71 (1989) 685-691
14. Binmore K. Why experiment in economics?. Econ. J. 109 (1999) F16-F24
15. Bjornstad D., Ronald C., and Laura O. A learning design for reducing hypothetical bias in the contingent valuation method. Environ. Resource Econ. 10 3 (1997) 207-221
16. Blomquist G.C., and Whitehead J.C. Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation. Resource Energy Econ. 20 (1998) 179-196
17. Boyle K.J., Bishop R.C., and Welsh M. Starting point bias in contingent valuation surveys. Land Econ. 61 (1985) 188-194
18. Braga J., and Starmer C. Preference anomalies, preference elicitation and the discovered preference hypothesis. Environ. Resource Econ. 32 1 (2005) 55-89
19. Cameron T.A., and Quiggin J. Estimation using contingent valuation data from a "dichotomous choice with follow-up" questionnaire. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 27 (1994) 218-234
20. Carlsson F., and Martinsson P. Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 41 (2001) 179-192
21. Carlsson F., and Martinsson P. How much is too much?-An investigation of the effect of the number of choice sets. starting point and the choice bid vectors in choice experiments, Environ. Resource Econ. 40 2 (2007) 165-176
22. F. Carlsson, P. Martinsson, Do experience and cheap talk influence willingness to pay in an open-ended contingent valuation survey, Working Papers in Economics no. 190, Göteborg University, Sweden, January 2006.
23. R.T. Carson, T. Groves, M.J. Machina, Incentive and informational properties of preference questions, in: The Kobe Conference on Theory and Application of Environmental Valuation, Kobe, 2000.
24. Cherry T.L., Crocker T.D., and Shogren J.F. Rationality spillovers. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 45 1 (2003) 63-84
25. Chien Y.L., Huang C.J., and Shaw D. A general model of starting point bias in double-bounded dichotomous contingent valuation surveys. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 50 2 (2005) 362-377
26. R. Croson, U. Gneezy, Gender differences in preferences, Working paper: Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 2004.
27. Cummings R.G., and Taylor L.O. Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Amer. Econ. Rev. 89 (1999) 649-665
28. C.C. Eckel, P.J. Grossman, Differences in the economic decisions of men and women: experimental evidence, in: C. Plott, V. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of Results in Experimental Economics, Elsevier, New York, forthcoming.
29. Greene W.H. Econometric Analysis (2003), Prentice-Hall International Inc., New York
30. Hanemann M.W. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 66 3 (1984) 332-341
31. Hanemann M.W., 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), Oxford University Press, Oxford
32. Hanley N., Adamowicz W., and Wright R.E. Price vector effects in choice experiments: an empirical test. Resource Energy Econ. 27 3 (2005) 227-234
33. Hanley N., and Shogren J.F. Is cost benefit analysis anomaly-proof?. Environ. Resource Econ. 32 1 (2005) 13-24
34. Harris C.C., Driver B.L., and McLaughlin W.J. Improving the contingent valuation method: a psychological perspective. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 17 3 (1989) 213-229
35. Harrison G.W. Making choice studies incentive compatible. In: Kanninen B. (Ed). Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Stated Choice Studies: A Common Sense Guide to Theory and Practice (2006), Kluwer, Boston
36. Herriges J.A., and Shogren J.F. Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 30 1 (1996) 112-131
37. Hoehn J.P., and Randall A. The effect of resource quality information on resource injury perceptions and contingent values. Resource Energy Econ. 24 (2002) 13-31
38. Huber J., and Zwerina K. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J. Marketing Res. 33 (1996) 307-317
39. W.G. Hutchinson, I. Bateman, D. Burgess, D.I. Matthews, Learning effects in repeated dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions, The Royal Economic Society Annual Conference, Paper no. 59, April 2004.
40. Johansson-Stenman O., and Martinsson P. Honestly, why are you driving a BMW?. J. Econ. Behav. Org. 60 2 (2006) 129-146
41. Kahneman D., and Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47 2 (1979) 263-291
42. Kahneman D., Slovic P., and Tversky A. Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (1982), Cambridge University Press, New York
43. Kotchen M.J., and Reiling S.D. Do reminders of substitutes and budget constraints influence contingent valuation estimates? Another comment. Land Econ. 75 (1999) 478-482
44. J. Ladenburg, S.B. Olsen, R.C.F. Nielsen, Reducing hypothetical bias in Choice Experiments-Testing an Opt-Out reminder, in: European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 15th Annual Conference, Thessaloniki, Greece, 2007.
45. Lancaster K.J. A new approach to consumer theory. J. Polit. Economy 74 2 (1966) 132-157
46. Landry C.E., and List J.A. Using ex ante approaches to obtain credible signals for value in contingent markets: evidence from the field. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 89 2 (2007) 420-429
47. Levitt S.D., and A List J. What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world?. J. Econ. Perspect. 21 2 (2007) 153-174
48. List J.A. Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auctions for sportscards. Amer. Econ. Rev. 91 (2001) 1498-1507
49. List J.A. Does market experience eliminate market anomalies?. Quart. J. Econ. 118 1 (2003) 41-71
50. List J.A. Young, selfish and male: field evidence of social preferences. Econ. J. 114 492 (2004) 121-149
51. List J.A., Sinha P., and Taylor M.H. Using choice experiments to value non-market goods and services: evidence from field experiments. Adv. Econ. Anal. Pol. 6 2 (2006) 1-37
52. List J.A., Berrens R.P., Bohara A.K., and Kerkvliet J. Examining the role of social isolation on stated preferences. Amer. Econ. Rev. 94 3 (2004) 741-752
53. Loomis J.B., Gonzalez-Caban A., and Gregory R. Do reminders of substitutes and budget constraints influence contingent valuation estimates?. Land Econ. 70 (1994) 499-506
54. Louviere J., Hensher D.A., and Swait J. Stated Choice Methods. Analysis and Applications (2000), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
55. Lusk J.L. Willingness-to-pay for Golden Rice. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 85 4 (2003) 840-856
56. Mason C.F., Phillips O.R., and Redington D.B. The role of gender in a non-cooperative game. J. Econ. Behav. Org. 15 2 (1991) 215-235
57. J. Meyers-Levy, Gender differences in information processing: a selective interpretation, in: P. Cafferata, A.M. Tybout (Eds.), Cognitive and Affective Responses to Advertising, Lexington, MA, 1989.
58. Meyers-Levy J., and Maheswaran D. Exploring differences in males' and females' processing strategies. J. Cons. Res. 18 (1991) 63-70
59. Meyers-Levy J., and Sternthal B. Gender differences in the use of message cues and judgements. J. Marketing Res. 28 (1991) 84-96
60. Meyers-Levy J., and Tybout A.M. Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation. J. Cons. Res. 16 (1989) 39-54
61. Mitchell R.C., and Carson R.T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method (1989), RFF, Washington, DC, USA
62. Neill H.R. The context for substitutes in CVM studies: some empirical observations. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 29 (1995) 393-397
63. Nyborg K. Homo economicus and Homo Politicus: interpretation and aggregation of environmental values. J. Econ. Behav. Org. 42 (2000) 305-322
64. Ohler T., Le A., Louviere J., and Swait J. Attribute range effects in binary response task. Marketing Lett. 11 3 (2000) 249-260
65. Plott C.R. Rational individual behaviour in markets and social choice processes: the discovered preference hypothesis. In: Arrow K., Colombatto E., Perlman M., and Schmidt C. (Eds). Rational Foundations of Economic Behaviour (1996), Macmillan Press Ltd., London
66. Poe G.L., Giraud K.L., and Loomis J.B. Computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 87 2 (2005) 353-365
67. Rabin M. Cognitive dissonance and social change. J. Econ. Behav. Org. 23 2 (1994) 177-194
68. Ryan M., and Wordsworth S. Sensitivity of willingness to pay estimates to level of attributes in discrete choice experiments. Scot. J. Polit. Economy 47 5 (2000) 504-524
69. Slovic P. The construction of preferences. Amer. Psych. 50 (1995) 364-371
70. Sugden R. Anomalies and stated preference techniques: a framework for a discussion of coping strategies. Environ. Res. Econ. 32 1 (2005) 1-12
71. Swait J., and Louviere J. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. J. Marketing Res. 30 3 (1993) 305-314
72. Tkac J. The effect of information on willingness-to-pay values of endangered species. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 80 (1998) 1214-1220
73. Train K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (2003), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
74. Tversky A., and Kahneman D. Rational choice and the framing of decisions. J. Bus. 59 4, pt. 2 (1986) S251-S278
75. Whitehead J. Incentive incompatibility and starting point bias in iterative valuation questions. Land Econ. 78 2 (2002) 285-297
76. Whitehead J., and Blomquist G.C. Do reminders of substitutes and budget constraints influence contingent valuation estimates? Comment. Land Econ. 71 (1995) 541-543
77. Zelezny L.C., Chua P., and Aldrich C. Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. J. Soc. Issues 56 3 (2000) 443-457