Task independence in stated preference studies: A test of order effect explanations

Working Paper - Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment

Volumn , Issue 1, 2009, Pages 1-40

  Day, Brett ^a   Bateman, Ian J ^a   Carson, Richard T ^b   Dupont, Diane ^c   Louviere, Jordan J ^d   Morimoto, Sanae ^e   Scarpa, Riccardo ^f   Wang, Paul ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c BROCK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

^e KOBE UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^f UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Drinking water; Ordering effect; Reference price; Stated preference; Strategic behavior

Indexed keywords

DRINKING WATER; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK; ISOLATION EFFECT; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; SAMPLING; STRATEGIC APPROACH; VARIANCE ANALYSIS;

EID: 73649095545     PISSN: 09678875     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. W.L. Adamowicz, What's it worth?: an examination of historical trends and future directions in environmental valuation, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 48 (2004) 419-443.
2. W.L. Adamowicz, J.J. Louviere, M. Williams, Combining revealed and stated preference for valuing environmental amenities, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26 (1994) 271-292.
3. A. Alberini, B. Kanninen, R.T. Carson, Modeling response incentives in dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies. Land Economics 73(1997) 309-324.
4. J. Alevy, C. Landry, and J. List, Anchors away: field experiments on anchoring of economic valuations, East Carolina University 2008 Working Papers, ecu0810, July 2008.
5. O. Amir, J. Levav, Choice construction versus preference construction: the instability of preferences learned in context, Journal of Marketing Research 45 (2008) 145-158.
6. K. Arrow, R. Solow, P.R. Portney, E.E. Leamer, R. Radner and H. Schuman, Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation, Federal Register 58 (1994) 4601-4614.
7. I.J. Bateman, D. Burgess, W.G. Hutchinson, D.I. Matthews, Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 55 (2008a) 127-141.
8. I.J. Bateman, Carson, R.T., Day, B.H., Dupont, D., Louviere, J.J., Morimoto, S., Scarpa, R. and -Wang, P., Choice Set Awareness and Ordering Effects in Choice Experiments, CSERGE Working Paper EDM 08-101, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia, (2008b).
9. I.J. Bateman, R.T. Carson, B.H. Day, W.M. Hanemann, N. Hanley, T. Hett, M. Jones-Lee, G. Loomes, S. Mourato, E. Özdemiroǧlu, D.W. Pearce, R. Sugden, J. Swanson, Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, 2002.
10. I.J. Bateman, I.H. Langford, A.P. Jones, and G.N. Kerr, Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Resource and Energy Economics 23 (2001) 191-213.
11. K.J. Boyle, R.C. Bishop, M.P. Welsh, Starting point bias in contingent valuation bidding games, Land Economics 61 (1985) 188-194.
12. J. Braga, C. Starmer, Preference Anomalies, Preference Elicitation and the Discovered Preference Hypothesis, Environmental and Resource Economics 32 (2005) 55-89.
13. J. Brazell, J. Louviere, Respondent's help, learning and fatigue. Presented at the 1997 INFORMS Marketing Science Conference, University of California, Berkeley, 1997.
14. R.A. Briesch, R.A., L. Krishnamurthi, T. Mazamdur, S.P. Raj, A comparative analysis of reference pricing models, Journal of Consumer Research 24 (1997) 202-214.
15. T. Brown, D. Kingsley, G. Peterson, N.E. Flores, A. Clarke, and A. Birjulin, Reliability of individual valuations of public and private goods: Choice consistency, response time, and preference refinement, Journal of Public Economics 92(2008) 1595-1606.
16. R.E. Bucklin, R.E. Lattin, Reference effects of price and promotion on brand choice, Journal of Marketing Research 26 (1989) 299-310.
17. T.A. Cameron, T.A. and J. Quiggin, Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a "Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up" Questionnaire. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 27 (1994) 218-234.
18. F. Carlsson, F., P. Martinsson, 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, Environmental and Resource Economics 40 (2008) 165-176.
19. R.T. Carson, Contingent Valuation: A Comprehensive Bibliography and History, Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA, forthcoming.
20. R.T. Carson, T. Groves, Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions, Environmental and Resource Economics 37 (2007)181-210.
21. J.R. Corrigan, C.L. Kling, J. Zhao, Dynamic willingness to pay: An empirical specification and test, Environmental and Resource Economics 40 (2008) 285-298.
22. S. Caussade, S., J. de D. Ortuzar, L. Rizzi, D. Hensher, Assessing the Influence of Design Dimensions on Stated Choice Experiment Estimates. Transportation Research B, 39 (2005) 621-640.
23. P.A. Champ, K. Boyle, T.C. Brown (eds.), A Primer on Non-market Valuation, Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, 2003. 34
24. Y.L. Chien, C.J. Huang, D. Shaw, A general model of starting point bias in double-bounded dichotomous contingent valuation surveys, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 50 (2005) 362-377.
25. B.H. Day, J.L. Pinto, Ordering anomalies in choice experiments, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE), School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, 2009.
26. Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), An introductory guide to valuing ecosystem services, Defra, London, available at www.defra.gov.uk, 2007.
27. B.G. Dellaert, J.D. Brazell, J.J. Louviere (1999), The effect of attribute variation on consumer choice consistency, Marketing Letters 10 (1999) 139-147.
28. W.S. DeSarbo, D.R. Lehmann, F.G. Hollman, Modeling dynamic effects in repeated-measures experiments involving preference/choice: an illustration involving stated preference analysis, Applied Psychological Measurement 28 (2004) 186-209.
29. J.R. DeShazo, Designing transactions without framing effects in iterative question formats. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43 (2002) 360-385.
30. J.R. DeShazo, G. Fermo, Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44 (2002) 123-143.
31. A. Gabor, C.W.J. Granger, On the price consciousness of consumers, Applied Statistics 10 (1961) 170-188.
32. W.M. Hanemann, J. Loomis, B. Kanninen, Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73 (1991) 1255-1263.
33. D. Hensher and J. Rose, Simplifying choice through attribute preservation or non-attendance: Implications for willingness to pay, Transportation Research Part E 45 (2009) 583-590.
34. J.A. Herriges, J.F. Shogren, Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30 (1996) 112-131.
35. I.P. Holman, P.J. Loveland, R.J. Nicholls, S. Shackley, P.M. Berry, M.D.A. Rounsevell, E. Audsley, P.A. Harrison, R. Wood, REGIS: regional climate change impact response studies in East Anglia and North West England", report to UK Defra, 2002.
36. T.P. Holmes, K.J. Boyle, Dynamic learning and context-dependence in sequential, attribute-based, stated-preference valuation questions. Land Economics 81 (2005) 114-126.
37. T.P. Holmes, R.A. Kramer, An independent sample test for yea-saying and starting point bias in dichotomous choice contingent valuation, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29 (1995) 121-132.
38. W. Hu, Bargains or rip-offs: reference price effects in conjoint demand, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 32 (2007) 256-272.
39. P.R. Hunter, Climate change and waterborne and vector-borne disease, Journal of Applied Microbiology94 (2003) 37-46.
40. F.R. Johnson, W.H. Desvousges, Estimating stated preferences with rated-pair data: environmental, health, and employment effects of energy programs, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 34 (1997) 79-99.
41. P. Kabat, R.E. Schulze, M.E. Hellmuth, J.A. Veraart, eds., Coping with impacts of climate variability and climate change in water management: a scoping paper, DWC-Report no. DWCSSO-01(2002), International Secretariat of the Dialogue on Water and Climate, Wageningen, Netherlands, 2002.
42. G. Kalyanaram, R.S. Winer, Empirical generalizations from reference price research, Marketing Science, 14 (1995) G161-G169.
43. J. Ladenburg, S.B. Olsen, Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: Evidence from an empirical study, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 56 (2008) 275-285.
44. J.J. Louviere, D. Hensher, J. Swait, Stated choice methods: analysis and application, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
45. R. D. Luce, Thurstone and sensory scaling: then and now, Psychological Review101 (1994) 271-277.
46. T. Maddala, K.A. Phillips, F.R. Johnson, An experiment on simplifying conjoint analysis designs for measuring preferences. Health Economics, 12 (2003) 1035-1047.
47. G.E. Mayhew, R.S. Winer, An Empirical Analysis of Internal and External Reference Prices Using Scanner Data, Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (1992) 62-70.
48. T. Mazumdar, S.P. Raj, and I. Sinha, Reference price research: review and propositions, Journal of Marketing 69 (2005) 84-102. 35
49. D. McFadden, Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice analysis, in P. Zarembka, ed., Frontiers in Econometrics, Academic Press, New York, 1974.
50. R. Mitchell, R. Carson, Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, 1989.
51. MORI, The 2004 Periodic Review: research into customers' views, London: DEFRA, 2002.
52. R. O'Conor, M. Johannesson, P.O. Johansson, Stated preferences, real behavior and anchoring: some empirical evidence, Environmental and Resource Economics 13 (1999) 235-248.
53. T. Ohler, A. Le., J. Louviere, J. Swait, Attribute range effects in binary response tasks, Marketing Letters 11 (2000) 249-260.
54. C.R. Plott, Rational individual behavior in markets and social choice processes: the discovered preference hypothesis, in Rational foundations of economic behavior, K. Arrow, E. Colombatto, M. Perleman, C. Schmidt, eds., London: Macmillan, 1996
55. Putler, D.S., Incorporating reference price effects into a theory of consumer choice, Marketing Science 11 (1992) 287-309.
56. M. Rothschild, Models of market organization with imperfect information, Journal of Political Economy 81(1973) 1283-1308.
57. R. Rowe, R. C. d'Arge, D. S. Brookshire, An experiment on the economic value of visibility, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 7 (1980) 1-19.
58. S. Salop, J. Stiglitz, Bargains and rip-offs: a theory of price dispersion with monopolistic competition, Review of Economic Studies 44 (1977) 493-510.
59. S. Savage, D. Waldman Learning and fatigue during choice experiments: a comparison of online and mail survey modes, Journal of Applied Econometrics 23 (2008)351-371.
60. R. Scarpa, E.S.K. Ruto, P. Kristjanson, M. Radeny, A. Drucker, J.E.O. Rege, Valuing indigenous cattle breeds in Kenya: an empirical comparison of stated and revealed Preference value estimates, Ecological Economics 45 (2003) 409-426.
61. R. Slonim, E. Garbarino Similarities and differences in stockpiling and reference effects, Managerial and Decision Economics 30 (2009) 351-371.
62. D. Stahl, Oligopolistic pricing with sequential consumer search. American Economic Review 79 (1989) 700-712
63. A.P. Street, D.J. Street, Combinatorics of experimental design Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.
64. G. Stigler, The economics of information, Journal of Political Economy 69 (1961) 213-229.
65. J. Swait, W. Adamowicz, The influence of task complexity on consumer choice: a latent class model of decision strategy switching, Journal of Consumer Research 28 (2001) 135-148.
66. L.O. Taylor, M.D. Morrison, K.J. Boyle, Exchange rules and the incentive compatibility of choice experiments, manuscript, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, North Carolina State University, 2007.
67. R. Thaler, Mental accounting and consumer choice, Marketing Science 4 (1985) 199-214.
68. L. Thurstone, A law of comparative judgment, Psychological Review 34 (1927) 273-286.
69. A. Tversky, D. Kahneman, Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases, Science 185 (1974) 1124-1131.
70. A. Tversky, D. Kahneman, Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-dependent model, Quarterly Journal of Economics 106 (1991) 1039-1061.
71. J. Whitehead, Incentive incompatibility and starting-point bias in iterative valuation questions, Land Economics 78 (2002) 285-297.
72. P. Wicksteed, The common sense of political economy, Volume I. Routledge, London, 1910.