Heterogeneous anchoring in dichotomous choice valuation framework
AbstractThis article addresses the important issue of anchoring in contingent valuation surveys that use the double-bounded elicitation format. Anchoring occurs when responses to the follow-up dichotomous choice valuation question are influenced by the bid presented in the initial dichotomous choice question. Specifically, we adapt a theory from psychology to characterize respondents as those who are likely to anchor and those who are not. Using a model developed by Herriges and Shogren (1996), our method appears successful in discriminating between those who anchor and those who did not. An important result is that when controlling for anchoring ? and allowing the degree of anchoring to differ between respondent groups ? the efficiency of the double-bounded welfare estimate is greater than for the initial dichotomous choice question. This contrasts with earlier research that finds that the potential efficiency gain from the double-bounded questions is lost when anchoring is controlled for and that we are better off not asking follow-up questions. JEL Classification: Q26, C81, D71.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by De Boeck Université in its journal Recherches économiques de Louvain.
Volume (Year): 73 (2007)
Issue (Month): 4 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.cairn.info/revue-recherches-economiques-de-louvain.htm
anchoring; contingent valuation; heterogeneity; framing effects;
Other versions of this item:
- Emmanuel FLACHAIRE & Guillaume HOLLARD & Stéphane LUCHINI, 2007. "Heterogeneous anchoring in dichotomous choice valuation framework," Discussion Papers (REL - Recherches Economiques de Louvain) 2007042, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
- Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources
- C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
- D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Hanemann, W. Michael, 1985. "Some Issues In Continuous - And Discrete - Response Contingent Valuation Studies," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 14(1), April.
- Grether, David M., .
"Bayes Rule as a Descriptive Model: The Representativeness Heuristic,"
245, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
- Grether, David M, 1980. "Bayes Rule as a Descriptive Model: The Representativeness Heuristic," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 95(3), pages 537-57, November.
- Smith, V. Kerry, 1985. "Some Issues In Discrete Response Contingent Valuation Studies," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 14(1), April.
- John A. List, 2003.
"Neoclassical Theory Versus Prospect Theory: Evidence from the Marketplace,"
NBER Working Papers
9736, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- John A. List, 2004. "Neoclassical Theory Versus Prospect Theory: Evidence from the Marketplace," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(2), pages 615-625, 03.
- John List, 2004. "Neoclassical theory versus prospect theory: Evidence from the marketplace," Framed Field Experiments 00174, The Field Experiments Website.
- Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996.
"Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning,"
Staff General Research Papers
1501, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 112-131, January.
- Green, Donald & Jacowitz, Karen E. & Kahneman, Daniel & McFadden, Daniel, 1998.
"Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods,"
Resource and Energy Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 85-116, June.
- Donald Green & Karen Jacowitz & Daniel Kahneman & Daniel McFadden, 1995. "Referendum Contingent Valuation, Anchoring, and Willingness to Pay for Public Goods," Working Papers _010, University of California at Berkeley, Econometrics Laboratory Software Archive.
- Viaud, Jean & Roland-Levy, Christine, 2000. "A positional and representational analysis of consumption. Households when facing debt and credit," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 411-432, August.
- Hollard, G. & Luchini, S., 1999. "Theories du choix social et representations: analyse d'une enquete sur le tourisme cert en Camargue," G.R.E.Q.A.M. 99b06, Universite Aix-Marseille III.
- repec:hal:journl:halshs-00584247 is not listed on IDEAS
- Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander G. James & Stéphane Luchini & Jason F. Shogren, 2010.
"Social psychology and environmental economics : a new look at ex ante corrections of biased preference evaluation,"
Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne
10016, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
- Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander James & Stéphane Luchini & Jason Shogren, 2011. "Social Psychology and Environmental Economics: A New Look at ex ante Corrections of Biased Preference Evaluation," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 413-433, March.
- repec:hal:journl:halshs-00462193 is not listed on IDEAS
- Schwarzinger, Michaël & Carrat, Fabrice & Luchini, Stéphane, 2009. ""If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question": Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchori," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 873-884, July.
- Luchini, Stéphane & Watson, Verity, 2013.
"Uncertainty and framing in a valuation task,"
Journal of Economic Psychology,
Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 204-214.
- Stephane Luchini & Verity Watson, 2008. "Does respondent uncertainty explain framing effects in double bounded contingent valuation?," Working Papers halshs-00285861, HAL.
- Dominique Ami & Frédéric Aprahamian & Olivier Chanel & Stéphane Luchini, 2011.
"A Test of Cheap Talk in Different Hypothetical Contexts: The Case of Air Pollution,"
Environmental & Resource Economics,
European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(1), pages 111-130, September.
- Dominique Ami & Frédéric Aprahamian & Olivier Chanel & Stephane Luchini, 2009. "A Test Of Cheap Talk In Different Hypothetical Contexts: The Case Of Air Pollution," Working Papers halshs-00382511, HAL.
- Michaël Schwarzinger & Fabrice Carrat & Stéphane Luchini, 2009. ""If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question". Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchori," Post-Print inserm-00636179, HAL.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jean-Baptiste de Vathaire).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.