Induced-value tests of contingent valuation elicitation mechanisms

被引:51
作者
Vossler, Christian A. [1 ]
Mckee, Michael
机构
[1] Univ Tennessee, Dept Econ, Stokely Management Ctr 534, Knoxville, TN 37996 USA
[2] Univ Calgary, Dept Econ, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada
关键词
contingent valuation; demand revelation; elicitation effects; experiments; hypothetical bias; value uncertainty; willingness to pay;
D O I
10.1007/s10640-006-9011-5
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Using an induced-value experimental design that varies whether values for a "good'' are certain or uncertain and whether payment is real or hypothetical, this study investigates issues of demand revelation, hypothetical bias, and value uncertainty for four elicitation mechanisms used in contingent valuation surveys: dichotomous choice, dichotomous choice with follow-up certainty question, payment card, and multiple-bounded discrete choice. For all elicitation mechanisms, we find no evidence of hypothetical bias: voting decisions do not vary systematically when payment is hypothetical versus when it is real. Under all design conditions we find the fewest deviations between stated and induced values and the strongest evidence of demand revelation with dichotomous choice. Stated uncertainty in dichotomous choice follow-up and multiple-bounded discrete choice questions does correlate with uncertain induced values, but the signal is noisy. We discuss the implications of our findings for the design of contingent valuation surveys.
引用
收藏
页码:137 / 168
页数:32
相关论文
共 24 条
[1]   MEASURING UTILITY BY A SINGLE-RESPONSE SEQUENTIAL METHOD [J].
BECKER, GM ;
DEGROOT, MH ;
MARSCHAK, J .
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE, 1964, 9 (03) :226-232
[2]   Further investigation of voluntary contribution contingent valuation: Fair share, time of contribution, and respondent uncertainty [J].
Berrens, RP ;
Jenkins-Smith, H ;
Bohara, AK ;
Silva, CL .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT, 2002, 44 (01) :144-168
[3]   An experimental investigation of explanations for inconsistencies in responses to second offers in double referenda [J].
Burton, AC ;
Carson, KS ;
Chilton, SM ;
Hutchinson, WG .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT, 2003, 46 (03) :472-489
[4]   Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods [J].
Champ, PA ;
Bishop, RC ;
Brown, TC ;
McCollum, DW .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT, 1997, 33 (02) :151-162
[5]   Laboratory testbeds and non-market valuation: The case of bidding behavior in a second-price auction with an outside option [J].
Cherry, TL ;
Frykblom, P ;
Shogren, JF ;
List, JA ;
Sullivan, MB .
ENVIRONMENTAL & RESOURCE ECONOMICS, 2004, 29 (03) :285-294
[6]   Multiple-bounded uncertainty choice data as probabilistic intentions [J].
Evans, MF ;
Flores, NE ;
Boyle, KJ .
LAND ECONOMICS, 2003, 79 (04) :549-560
[7]   MANIPULATION OF VOTING SCHEMES - GENERAL RESULT [J].
GIBBARD, A .
ECONOMETRICA, 1973, 41 (04) :587-601
[8]   Risk aversion and incentive effects [J].
Holt, CA ;
Laury, SK .
AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, 2002, 92 (05) :1644-1655
[9]  
HOROWITZ JK, 2005, BECKERDEGROOTMARSHAK
[10]   Payoff dominance vs. cognitive transparency in decision making [J].
Irwin, JR ;
McClelland, GH ;
McKee, M ;
Schulze, WD ;
Norden, NE .
ECONOMIC INQUIRY, 1998, 36 (02) :272-285