Framing the willingness-to-pay question: Impact on response patterns and mean willingness to pay

Health Economics (United Kingdom)

Volumn 23, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 550-563

  Gyrd Hansen, Dorte ^a,b,c   Jensen, Mette Lundsby ^a   Kjaer, Trine ^b  

^a Dansk Sundhedsinstitut   (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

^c UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

contingent valuation; framing; payment scale; WTP

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTINGENT VALUATION; CONVERGENT VALIDITY; ECONOMIC ASPECT; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; FRAMING BIAS; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; HEALTH CARE SURVEY; HUMAN; MALE; OPEN ENDED QUESTIONNAIRE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SEX RATIO; SOCIAL WELFARE; TAX; WILLINGNESS TO PAY; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE COST; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT ATTITUDE; SOCIOECONOMICS; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; FEMALE; FINANCING, PERSONAL; HEALTH EXPENDITURES; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, ECONOMIC; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84897978524     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: 10991050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.2932     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Alberini A, Hunt A, Makandya A,. 2006. Willingness to pay to reduce mortality risks: evidence from a three-country contingent valuation study. Environmental and Resource Economics 33: 251-264.
2. Andersson H, Hammitt J, Lindberg G, Sundstrom K,. 2011. Willingness to pay and sensitivity to time framing: a theoretical analysis and an application on car safety. Working paper series, Toulouse School of Economics.
3. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, et al,. 1993. Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent valuation. http://www.cbe.csueastbay.edu/~alima/courses/4306/ articles/NOAA%20on%20contingent%20valuation%201993.pdf
4. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, et al,. 2002. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: a Manual. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham.
5. Bennett J,. 2011. International Handbook of Non-market Environmental Valuations. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited: Cheltenham UK.
6. Blumenschein K, Johannesson M,. 1998. Relationship between quality of life instruments, health state utilities and willingness to pay in patients with asthma. Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology 80 (2): 189-194.
7. Boyle KV, Welsh MP, Bishop RC,. 1993. The role of question order and respondent experience in contingent-valuation studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 25 (1): S80-S99.
8. Braga J, Starmer C,. 2005. Preference anomalies, preference elicitation and the discovered preference hypothesis. Environmental and Resource Economics 32 (1): 55-89.
9. Brown TC, Champ PA, Bichop RC, McCollum DW,. 1996. Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good? Land Economics 72: 152-166.
10. Cameron TA, Poe GL, Ethier RG, Schultze WD,. 2002. Alternative non-market value-elicitation methods: are the underlying preferences the same? Environmental Economic and Management 44: 391-425.
11. Carson R, Groves M,. 2007. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics 37: 181-210.
12. Carson RT, Hanemann WM,. 2005. Chapter 17. Contingent valuation. Handbook of Environmental Economics 2: 821-936.
13. Carson RT, Flores NE, Martin KM, Wright JL,. 1996. Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Economics 72: 80-99.
14. Carson RT, Flores NE, Hanemann WM,. 1998. Sequencing and valuing public goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36: 314-323.
15. Cookson R,. 1993. Willingness to pay methods in health care: a sceptical view. Health Economics 12 (11): 891-89.
16. Covey J, Loomes G, Bateman IJ,. 2007. Valuing risk reductions: testing for range biases in payment card and random card sorting methods. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50 (4): 467-482.
17. Desvouges WH, Johnson FR, Dunford RW, Boyle KJ, Hudson SP, Wilson N,. 1993. Measuring natural resource damage with contingent valuation: tests of validity and reliability. In Contingent Valuation: a Critical Assessment, Hausman JA, (ed.), North-Holland Publishing Company: Amsterdam. 91-159.
18. Dixon S, Shackley P, Bonham J, Ibbotson R,. 2012. Putting a value on the avoidance of false positive results when screening for inherited metabolic disease in the newborn. Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease 35 (1): 169-176.
19. Donaldson C, Thomas R, Torgersen DJ,. 1997. Validity of open-ended and payment scale approaches to eliciting willingness to pay. Applied Economics 29: 79-84.
20. Groothuis JD, Whitehead JC,. 2007. Green vs. green: measuring the compensation required to site electrical generation windmills in a viewshed. Energy Policy 36: 1545-1550.
21. Hackl F, Pruckner GJ,. 1999. On the gap between payment card and closed-ended CVM answers. Applied Economics 31 (6): 733-742.
22. Håkansson C,. 2008. A new valuation question: analysis of and insights from interval open-ended data in contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 39: 175-188.
23. Halstead JM, Luloff AE, Stevens TH,. 1992. Protest bidders in contingent valuation. Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 21: 160-169.
24. Hammitt JK, Haninger K,. 2007. Willingness to pay for food safety: sensitivity to duration and severity of illness. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89 (5): 1170-1175.
25. Hanley N, Shogren JF,. 2005. Is cost-benefit analysis anomaly-proof? Environmental and Resource Economics 32 (1): 13-24.
26. Hanley ND, Wright RE, Adamowicz WL,. 1998. Using choice experiments to value the environment- design issues, current experience and future prospects. Environmental and Resource Economics 11: 413-428.
27. Hanley N, Ryan M, Wright R,. 2003. Estimating the monetary value of health care: lessons from environmental economics. Health Economics 12 (1): 3-16.
28. Herriges JA, Shogren JF,. 1996. Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30: 112-131.
29. Holms TP, Kramer RA,. 1995. An independent sample test of yea saying and starting point bias in dichotomous-choice contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29: 121-132.
30. Johannesson M, Johansson P-O, Kriström B, Gerdtham UG,. 1993. Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy-further results. Journal of Health Economics 12 (1): 95-108.
31. Johannsesson M, O'Conor RM, Kobelt-Nguyen G, Mattiasson A,. 1997. Willingness to pay for reduced incontinence symptoms. British Journal of Urology 80 (4): 557-562.
32. Kahneman D, Tversky A,. 1979. Prospect theory: and analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47 (2): 262-292.
33. Kangethe AW, Franic D,. 2012. Value of a diabetes prevention program in rural Kenya: comparing payment card and structured haggling willingness to pay methods. Value in Health 15 (4): A185. Available from: ISI:000304468201154.
34. Klose T,. 1999. The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy 47 (2): 97-123.
35. Krosnick JA, Holbrook A, Berent MK, et al,. 2002. The impact of 'no opinion' response options on data quality: non-attitude reduction or an invitation to satisfy? Public Opinion Quarterly 66: 371-403.
36. Krupnick A, Alberini A, Cropper M, et al,. 2002. Age, health and the willingness-to-pay for mortality risk reductions. A contingent valuation survey of Ontario residents. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 24 (2): 161-186.
37. Langford IH, Kontogianni A, Skourtos MS, Georgiou S, Bateman IJ,. 1998. Multivariate mixed models for open-ended contingent valuation data: willingness to pay for conservation of monk seals. Environmental and Resource Economics 12 (4): 443-456.
38. Lindsey G,. 1994. Market models, protest bids, and outliers in contingent valuation. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 120: 121-130.
39. List JA,. 2003. Does market experience eliminate market anomalies? Quarterly Journal of Economics 118 (1): 41-71.
40. Lopez-Martin B, Montes C, Benayas J,. 2008. Economic valuation of biodiversity conservation: the meaning of numbers. Conservation Biology 22: 624-635.
41. Mahieu PA, Riera P, Giergiczny M,. 2012. Determinants of willingness-to-pay for water pollution abatement: a point and interval data payment card application. Journal of Environmental Management 108: 49-53.
42. McCollum DW, Boyle KJ,. 2005. The effect of respondent experience/knowledge in the elicitation of contingent values: an investigation of convergent validity, procedural invariance and reliability. Environmental and Resource Economics 30 (1): 23-33.
43. Meyerhoff J, Liebe U,. 2008. Do protest responses to a contingent valuation question and a choice experiment differ? Environmental and Resource Economics 39 (4): 433-446.
44. Mitchell RC, Carson RT,. 1981. An experiment in determining willingness to pay for national water quality improvements. Report to the Environmental Protection Agency, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
45. Mitchell RM, Carson RT,. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: the Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future: Washington, D.C.
46. Murphy JJ, Allen PG, Stevens TH, Weatherhead D,. 2005. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 30: 313-325.
47. O'Brien B, Gafni A,. 1996. When do the "dollars" make sense? Toward a conceptual framework for contingent valuation studies in health care. Medical Decision Making 16: 288-299.
48. O'Brien B, Novosel S, Torrance G, Streiner D,. 1995. Assessing the economics value of a new antidepressant. A willingness to pay approach. PharmacoEconomics 8 (1): 34-45.
49. Olsen JA, Donaldson C,. 1998. Helicopters, hearts and hips: using willingness to pay to set priorities for public sector health care programmes. Social Science & Medicine 46 (1): 1-12.
50. Olsen JA, Smith RD,. 2001. Theory versus practice: a review of "willingness-to-pay" in health and health care. Health Economics 10: 39-52.
51. Poe GL, Giraud KL, Loomis JB,. 2005. Computational methods for measuring the difference in empirical distributions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87: 353-365.
52. Ready RC, Buzby JC, Hu D,. 1996. Differences between continuous and discrete contingent value estimates. Land Economics 72: 397-411.
53. Robinson LA, Hammitt JK,. 2011. Behavioral economics and the conduct of benefit-cost analysis: towards principles and standards. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis 2 (2): Article 5. DOI: 10.2202/2152-2812.1059
54. Rowe RD, Schulze WD, Breffle WS,. 1996. A test for payment card biases. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31: 178-185.
55. Ryan M, Watson V,. 2009. Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. Health Economics 18 (4): 389-401.
56. Schultze WD, McClelland G, Waldman D, Lazo J,. 1996. Sources of bias in contingent valuation. In The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources: Methodological Issues and Research Needs, Bjornstad DJ, Kahn JR, (eds), Edward Elgar: Brookfield; 97-116.
57. Smith KV,. 1993. Nonmarket valuations of environmental resources: an interpretive appraisal. Land Economics 69: 1-26.
58. Vasquez WF, Mozumder P, Hernandez-Arce J, Berrens RP,. 2009. Willingness to pay for safe drinking water: evidence from Parral, Mexico. Journal of Environmental Management 90: 3391-3400.
59. Watson V, Ryan M,. 2007. Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation. Journal of Health Economics 26: 463-482.
60. Whynes DK, Frew E, Wolstenholme JL,. 2003. A comparison of two methods for eliciting contingent valuations of colorectal cancer screening. Journal of Health Economics 22: 555-574.
61. Whynes DK, Wolstenholme JL, Frew E,. 2004. Evidence of range bias in contingent valuation payment scales. Health Economics 13: 183-190.
62. Zethraeus N, Johannesson M, Henriksson P, Strand RT,. 1997. The impact of hormone replacement therapy on quality of life and WTP. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 104 (10): 1191-1195.