Measuring Willingness to Pay by Means of the Trade-off between Free Available Cash and Specific-Purpose Vouchers

Business Research

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 154-171

  Lieven, Theo ^a   Lennerts, Silke ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ST GALLEN   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

hypothetical bias; incentive compatibility; M31; stated preferences; willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

EID: 84942752095     PISSN: 21983402     EISSN: 21982627     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF03342747     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Ajzen, Icek, Thomas C. Brown, and Franklin Carvajal (2004): Explaining the Discrepancy between Intentions and Actions: The Case of Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30 (9): 1108–1121.
2. Allenby, Greg M., Neeraj Arora, and James L. Ginter (1995): Incorporating Prior Knowledge into the Analysis of Conjoint Studies, Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (2): 152–162.
3. Barrot, Christian, Sönke Albers, Bernd Skiera, and Björn Schäfers (2010): Vickrey vs. eBay: Why Second-Price Sealed-Bid Auctions Lead to More Realistic Price-Demand Functions, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 14 (4): 7–38.
4. Bateson, John E. G. and Michael K. Hui (1992): The Ecological Validity of Photographic Slides and Videotapes in Simulating the Service Setting, Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (2): 271–281.
5. Becker, Gordon M., Morris H. DeGroot, and Jacob Marschak (1964): Measuring Utility by a Single-Response Sequential Method, Systems Resarch and Behavioral Science, 9 (3): 226–32.
6. Blatter, David, Klaus Miller, Reto Hofstetter, and Harley Krohmer, H. (2009): Improving the Direct Estimation of Demand by Adjusting for Incorrect Price-Statements, Proceedings of the 38th EMAC Conference, 26–29 May 2009, Nantes, France.
7. Bornstein, Brian H. (1999): The Ecological Validity of Jury Simulations: Is the Jury Still out?, Law and Human Behavior, 23 (1): 75–91.
8. Brunswik, Egon and Joe Kamiya (1953): Ecological Cue-Validity of ‘Proximity’ and of Other Gestalt Factors, American Journal of Psychology, 66 (1): 20–32.
9. Campbell, Donald. T. and Julian Stanley (1963): Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research, Houghton Mifflin: Boston et al., MA.
10. Darmon, René Y. and Rouziès, Dominique (1994): Reliability and Internal Validity of Conjoint Estimated Utility Functions under Error-Free versus Error-Full Conditions, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11 (5): 465–476.
11. Dasgupta, Partha, Peter Hammond, and Eric Maskin (1979): The Implementation of Social Choice Rules: Some General Results on Incentive Compatibility, The Review of Economic Studies 46 (2): 185–216.
12. De Leeuw, Jan, Forrest W. Young, and Yoshio Takane (1976): Additive Structure in Qualitative Data: An Alternating Least Squares Method with Optimal Scaling Features, Psychometrika, 41 (4): 471–503.
13. Ding, Min (2007): An Incentive-Aligned Mechanism for Conjoint Analysis, Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (2): 214–223.
14. Ding, Min, Rajdeep Grewal, and John Liechty (2005): Incentive-Aligned Conjoint Analysis, Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (1): 67–82.
15. Dong, Songting, Min Ding, and Joel Huber (2010): A Simple Mechanism to Incentive-Align Conjoint Experiments, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27 (1): 25–32.
16. Dost, Florian and Robert Wilken (2012): Measuring Willingness to Pay as a Range, Revisited: When Should We Care?, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29 (2): 148–166.
17. Green, Paul E., Kristiaan Helsen, and Bruce Shandler (1988): Conjoint Internal Validity under Alternative Profile Presentations, Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (3): 392–397.
18. Green, Paul E. and Vithala R. Rao (1971): Conjoint Measurement for Quantifying Judgmental Data, Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (3): 355–363.
19. Green, Paul E. and V. Srinivasan (1978): Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook, Journal of Consumer Research, 5 (2): 103–123.
20. Green, Paul E. and V. Srinivasan (1990): Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice, Journal of Marketing, 54 (4): 3–19.
21. th ed., Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ.
22. Hamlin, Robert P. (2005): The Rise and Fall of the Latin Square in Marketing: A Cautionary Tale, European Journal of Marketing, 39 (3/4): 328–350.
23. Hanemann, W. Michael (1991): Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?, The American Economic Review, 81 (3): 635–647.
24. Hanley, Nick, Susana Mourato, and Robert E. Wright (2001): Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?, Journal of Economic Surveys, 15 (3): 435–462.
25. Heckman, James (1990): Varieties of Selection Bias, American Economic Review, 80 (2): 313–318.
26. Herrmann, Andreas, Mark Heitmann, Robert Morgan, Stephan C. Henneberg, and Jan Landwehr (2009): Consumer Decision Making and Variety of Offerings: The Effect of Attribute Alignability, Psychology & Marketing, 26 (4): 333–358.
27. Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky (1984): Choices, Values and Frames, American Psychologist 39 (4): 341–350.
28. List, John A. and Craig A. Gallet (2001): What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values? Evidence from a Meta-Analysis, Environmental and Resource Economics, 20 (3): 241–254.
29. Little, Joseph and Robert Berrens, (2004): Explaining Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values: Further Investigation Using Meta-Analysis, Economics Bulletin, 3 (6): 1–13.
30. Milgrom, Paul R. and Robert J. Weber (1982): A Theory of Auctions and Competitive Bidding, Econometrica, 50 (5): 1089–1122.
31. Miller, Klaus M., Reto Hofstetter, Harley Krohmer, and Z. John Zhang (2011): How Should Consumers’ Willingness to Pay Be Measured? An Empirical Comparison of State-of-the-Art Approaches, Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (1): 172–184.
32. Moffitt, Robert (1989): Estimating the Value of an In-Kind Transfer: The Case of Food Stamps, Econometrica, 57 (2): 385–409.
33. Motowidlo, Stephan J., Marvin D. Dunette, and Garry W. Carter (1990): An Alternative Selection Procedure: The Low-Fidelity Simulation, Journal of Applied Psychology, 75 (6): 640–647.
34. Müller, Holger, Steffen Voigt, and Bernd Erichson (2009): Befragungsbasierte Methoden zur Ermittlung von Preisresponsefunktionen: Preisbereitschaft oder Kaufbereitschaft, Working Paper, RePEc.
35. Murphy, James J., P. Geoffrey Allen, Thomas H. Stevens, and Darryl Weatherhead (2005): A Meta-Analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation, Environmental and Resource Economics, 30 (3): 313–325.
36. Neisser, Ulric (1976): Cognition and Reality: Principles and Implications of Cognitive Psychology, Freeman: New York, NY.
37. Park, Young-Hoon, Min Ding, and Vithala R. Rao (2008): Eliciting Preference for Complex Products: A Web-Based Upgrading Method, Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (5): 562–574.
38. Raser, John R. (1969): Simulation and Society: An Exploration of Scientific Gaming, Allyn and Bacon: Boston, MA.
39. Rogers, Steven D., Endre E. Kadar, and Alan Costall (2005): Gaze Patterns in the Visual Control of Straight-Road Driving and Braking as a Function of Speed and Expertise, Ecological Psychology, 17 (1), 19–38.
40. Simon, Julian L. (1969): A Further Test of the Kinky Oligopoly Demand Curve, American Economic Review, 59 (5): 971–975.
41. Srinivasan, V., Arun K. Jain, and Naresh K. Malhotra (1983): Improving Predictive Power of Conjoint Analysis by Constrained Parameter Estimation, Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (4): 433–438.
42. Sweezy, Paul M. (1939): Demand under Conditions of Oligopoly, The Journal of Political Economy, 47 (4): 568–573.
43. Teichert, Thorsten and Edlira Shehu (2010): Investigating Research Streams of Conjoint Analysis: A Bibliometric Study, BuR — Business Research, 3 (1): 49–68.
44. Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman (1974): Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Science, 185: 1124–1131
45. rd ed., Norton: New York et al., NY.
46. Vickrey, William (1961): Counterspeculation, Auctions, and Competitive Sealed Tenders, Journal of Finance, 16 (1): 8–37.
47. Völckner, Franziska (2006): An Empirical Comparison of Methods for Measuring Consumers’ Willingness to Pay, Marketing Letters, 17 (2): 137–149.
48. Wang, Tuo, R. Venkatesh, and Rabikar Chatterjee (2007): Reservation Price as a Range: An Incentive-Compatible Measurement Approach, Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (2): 200–213.
49. Wansink, Brian, Robert J. Kent, and Stephen J. Hoch (1998): An Anchoring and Adjustment Model of Purchase Quantity Decisions, Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (1): 71–81.
50. Wertenbroch, Klaus and Bernd Skiera (2002): Measuring Consumers’ Willingness to Pay at the Point of Purchase, Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (2): 228–241.
51. Wittink, Dick R., Lakshman Krishnamurthi, and David J. Reibstein (1989): The Effect of Differences in the Number of Attribute Levels on Conjoint Results, Marketing Letters, 1 (2): 113–123.