A Comparison Between the conventional stated preference technique and an inferred valuation approach

Journal of Agricultural Economics

Volumn 64, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 405-422

  Yadav, Lava ^a   van Rensburg, Thomas M ^a   Kelley, Hugh ^a  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Choice experiments; Direct questions; Hypothetical bias; Indirect questions; Inferred valuation; Social desirability bias; Stated preference techniques; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE STUDY; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; GRASSLAND; LANDSCAPE; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; SPECIES CONSERVATION; VALUATION; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

BURREN; COUNTY CLARE; IRELAND; MUNSTER [IRELAND];

ORCHIDACEAE;

EID: 84877922965     PISSN: 0021857X     EISSN: 14779552     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2012.00375.x     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Allison, S. T., Messick, D. M. and Goethals, G. R. On being better but not smarter than others: the Muhammad Ali effect', Social Cognition, Vol. 7, (1989) pp. 275-296.
2. Brown, T. C., Ajzen, I. and Hrubes, D. Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 46, (2003) pp. 353-361.
3. Campbell, D., Hutchinson, G. W. and Scarpa, R. Incorporating discontinuous preferences into the analysis of discrete choice experiments', Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 41, (2008) pp. 401-417.
4. Carlsson, F., Daruvala, D. and Jaldell, H. Do you do what you say or do you do what you say others do?Journal of Choice Modelling, Vol. 3, (2010) pp. 113-133.
5. Deenihan, A., Donlan, J., Breen, J. and Moles, R. Mid-term impacts of excluding large grazing animals on a Burren grass/shrubland patch', Biology and Environment: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol. 109B, (2009) pp. 107-113.
6. Dunford, B. Farming and the Burren (Dublin: Teagasc Publications, 2002, pp. 32-51).
7. Epley, N. and Dunning, D. Feeling 'Holier than thou': Are self-serving assessments produced by errors in self- or social prediction?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 79, (2000) pp. 861-875.
8. Fisher, R. Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, (1993) pp. 303-315.
9. Goethals, G. R. Fabricating and ignoring social reality: Self-serving estimates of consensus', in J. M. Olson, C. P. Herman and M. P. Zanna (eds.), Social Comparison and Relative Deprivation: The Ontario Symposium, Vol. 4, (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1986, pp. 135-157).
10. Goethals, G. R., Messick, D. M. and Allison, S. T. The uniqueness bias: Studies of constructive social comparison', in J. Suls and T. A. Will (eds.), Social Comparison: Contemporary Theory and Research (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1991, pp. 149-176).
11. Greene, W. H. Econometric Analysis, 5th edn (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 2003).
12. Greene, W. H. NLOGIT. Version 4 Reference Guide. Econometric Software, (Plainview: New York, 2007).
13. Harrison, G. W. and Rutström, E. E. Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods', in C. R. Plott and V. L. Smith (eds.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Vol. 1 (New York: North-Holland, 2008, pp. 752-767).
14. Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. and Greene, W. H. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
15. Hole, A. A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness-to-pay measures', Health Economics, Vol. 16, (2007) pp. 827-840.
16. Johansson-Stenman, O. and Martinsson, P. Honestly why are you driving a BMW?Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 60, (2006) pp. 129-146.
17. Kahneman, D. and Sugden, R. Experienced utility as a standard of policy evaluation', Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 32, (2005) pp. 161-181.
18. Leggett, C. G., Klecktier, N. S., Boyle, K. J., Duffield, J. W. and Mitchell, R. C. Social desirability bias in contingent valuation surveys administered through in-person interviews', Land Economics, Vol. 79, (2003) pp. 561-575.
19. Levitt, S. D. and List, J. A. What Do Laboratory Experiments Tell Us About the Real World?(Working paper, Department of Economics, University of Chicago, 2005).
20. Levitt, S. D. and List, J. A. What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world?Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 20, (2007) pp. 153-174.
21. List, J. A. and Gallet, C. What experimental protocols influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values?Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 20, (2001) pp. 241-254.
22. List, J. A., Berrens, R. P., Bohara, A. K. and Kerkvliet, J. Examining the role of social isolation on stated preferences', American Economic Review, Vol. 94, (2004) pp. 741-752.
23. Lusk, J. L. and Norwood, F. B. An inferred valuation method', Land Economics, Vol. 85, (2009a) pp. 500-514.
24. Lusk, J. L. and Norwood, F. B. Bridging the gap between laboratory experiments and naturally occurring markets: an inferred valuation method', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 58, (2009b) pp. 236-250.
25. Lusk, J. L. and Norwood, F. B. Direct versus indirect questioning: an application to the well-being of farm animals', Social Indicators Research, Vol. 96, (2009c) pp. 551-565.
26. Miniard, P. W. and Cohen, J. B. Modeling personal and normative influences on behavior', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10, (1983) pp. 169-180.
27. Murphy, J. J., Allen, P. G., Stevens, T. H. and Weatherhead, D. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation', Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 30, (2005) pp. 313-325.
28. Norwood, F. B. and Lusk, J. L. Social desirability bias in real, hypothetical, and inferred valuation experiments', American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 93, (2011) pp. 528-534.
29. Olynk, N. J., Tonsor, G. T. and Wolf, C. A. Consumer willingness to pay for livestock credence attribute claim verification', Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Vol. 35, (2010) pp. 261-280.
30. Paulhus, D. L. Measurement and control of response bias', in J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver and L. S. Wrightsman (eds.), Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes (San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1991, pp. 17-59).
31. Scarpa, R., Ferrini, S. and Willis, K. Performance of error component models for status-quo effects in choice experiments', in R. Scarpa and A. Alberini (eds.), Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics (Dordrecht: Springer, 2005, pp. 247-273).
32. Schlapfer, F. Contingent valuation: Confusions, problems, and solutions', Ecological Economics, Vol. 68, (2009) pp. 1569-1571.
33. Stachtiaris, S., Drichoutis, A. and Klonaris, S. Preference reversals in contingent and inferred valuation methods', European Review of Agricultural Economics, (forthcoming).
34. Streb, M. J., Burrell, B., Fredrick, B. and Genovese, M. A. Social desirable effects and support for a female American president', Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 72, (2008) pp. 76-89.
35. Taylor, S. E. and Brown, J. D. Positive illusions and well-being revisited: Separating fact from fiction', Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 116, (1994) pp. 21-27.
36. Train, K. Recreation demand models with taste differences over people', Land Economics, Vol. 74, (1998) pp. 230-239.
37. Train, K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, 2nd edn (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
38. Winters, K. C. and Neale, J. M. Mania and low self-esteem', Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 94, (1985) pp. 282-290.