Preference uncertainty in stated preference studies: Facts and artefacts

Applied Economics

Volumn 45, Issue 15, 2013, Pages 2107-2115

  Akter, Sonia ^a   Bennett, Jeff ^b  

^a HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH UFZ   (Germany)

^b AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

climate change; contingent valuation; ordinal scale; polychotomous choice method; preference uncertainty

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; MODEL TEST; MODEL VALIDATION; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

EID: 84859636325     PISSN: 00036846     EISSN: 14664283     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2012.654914     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Akter, S and Bennett, J. 2011. Household perceptions of climate change and preferences for mitigation action: the case of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in Australia. Climatic Change, 109: 417-36.
2. Akter, S, Bennett, J and Akhter, S. 2008. Preference uncertainty in contingent valuation. Ecological Economics, 67: 345-51.
3. Anastasi, A and Urbina, S. 1997. Psychological Testing, 7th, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
4. Beatty, P. 1999. Fowler, F. J. and Fitzgerald, G., Construction strategies for complex survey questions, in Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section, American Statistical Association,pp. 973-8
5. Burkell, J. 2004. What are the chances? Evaluating risk and benefit information in consumer health materials. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92: 200-8.
6. Cameron, TA. 2005. Individual option prices for climate change mitigation. Journal of Public Economics, 89: 283-301.
7. Carson, R and Groves, T. 2007. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics, 37: 181-210.
8. Champ, PA and Bishop, RC. 2001. Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: an empirical study of hypothetical bias. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 19: 383-402.
9. Champ, PA, Bishop, RC, Brown, TC and McCollum, DW. 1997. Using donation mechanisms to value non-use benefits from public goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 33: 151-62.
10. Chang, JI, Yoo, SH and Kwak, SJ. 2007. An investigation of preference uncertainty in the contingent valuation study. Applied Economics Letter, 14: 691-5.
11. Clarke, VA, Ruffin, C and Hill, D. 1992. Ratings of orally presented verbal expressions of probability by a heterogeneous sample. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22: 630-56.
12. DeVellis, RF. 2003. Scale Development, 2nd, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
13. Downey, HK, Hellriegel, D and Slocum, JW. 1975. Environmental uncertainty: the construct and its applications. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20: 613-29.
14. Duncan, R. 1972. Characteristics of organizational environment and perceived environment uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17: 313-27.
15. Hanley, N, Kristrom, B and Shogren, J. 2009. Coherent arbitrariness: on preference uncertainty for environment goods. Land Economics, 85: 41-50.
16. Hartley, A. 2006. "Changing role of the speed of processing construct in the cognitive psychology of human aging". In Handbook of the Psychology of Aging, Edited by: Birren, JE and Schaie, KW. 183-207. New York: Elsevier.
17. Horan, PM, Di Stefano, C and Motl, RW. 2003. Wording effects in self esteem scales: methodological artifact or response style?. Structural Equation Modeling, 10: 444-55.
18. Houts, PS, Doak, CC, Doak, LG and Loscalzo, IVIJ. 2006. The role of pictures in improving health communication: a review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence. Patient Education and Counselling, 61: 173-90.
19. Krinsky, I and Robb, AL. 1986. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Review of Economics and Statistics, 68: 715-19.
20. Kriström, B. 1990. A non-parametric approach to the estimation of welfare measures in discrete response valuation studies. Land Economics, 66: 135-9.
21. Lau, L and Ranyard, R. 1999. Chinese and English speakers' linguistic expression of probability and probabilistic thinking. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30: 411-21.
22. Li, C and Mattson, L. 1995. Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: an improved structural model for contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 28: 256-69.
23. Loomis, J and Ekstrand, E. 1998. Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: the case of the Mexican Spotted Owl. Ecological Economics, 27: 29-41.
24. Marsiske, M and Margrett, JA. 2006. "Everyday problem solving and decision making". In Handbook of the Psychology of Aging, Edited by: Birren, JE and Schaie, KW. 315-42. New York: Elsevier.
25. McDowell, I and Newell, C. 1987. Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaire, New York: Oxford University Press.
26. McKelvey, RD and Zavoina, W. 1975. A statistical model for the analysis of ordinal level dependent variables. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 4: 103-20.
27. Peterson, RA and William, RW. 1992. Measuring customer satisfaction: fact and artefact. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20: 61-71.
28. G. L. Poe, Severance-Lossin, E. K. and Welsh, M. P. (1994) Measuring the difference (X-Y) of simulated distributions: a convolutions approach, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 76, 904-15
29. Preston, CC and Colman, AM. 2000. Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica, 104: 1-15.
30. Ready, RC, Champ, PA and Lawton, JL. 2010. Using respondent uncertainty to mitigate hypothetical bias in a stated choice experiment. Land Economics, 86: 363-81.
31. Ready, RC, Navrud, S and Dubourg, WR. 2001. How do respondents with uncertain willingness to pay answer contingent valuation questions?. Land Economics, 77: 315-26.
32. Ready, RC, Whitehead, J and Blomquist, G. 1995. Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29: 181-97.
33. Reagan, RT, Mosteller, F and Youtz, C. 1989. Quantitative meanings of verbal probability expressions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 433-42.
34. Roe, B, Boyle, K and Teisl, M. 1996. Using conjoint analysis to derive estimates of compensating variation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 31: 145-59.
35. Samnaliev, M, Stevens, TH and More, T. 2006. A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation. Ecological Economics, 57: 507-19.
36. Tesler, MD, Savedra, MC and Holzemer, WL. 1991. The word graphic rating scale as a measure of children's and adolescents' pain intensity. Research in Nursing and Health, 14: 1361-71.
37. Welsh, MP and Poe, GL. 1998. Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 36: 170-85.
38. Windschitl, PD and Wells, G. 1996. Measuring psychological uncertainty: verbal versus numeric. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2: 343-64.
39. Wooldridge, J. 2007. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40. 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.