Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change
AbstractIn the majority of choice experiments (CEs) the attributes of non-market goods are conveyed to respondents as a table of numeric and/or categorical data. Recent research suggests that respondents may have difficulties evaluating data in this format. In the context of a CE eliciting preferences for changes in coastal land use, this study uses a split-sample experiment to compare standard presentations with virtual reality (VR) visualisations conveying objectively identical information. We find that compared to the standard presentation, preferences elicited in VR treatments are less variable and exhibit a significant reduction in asymmetry between willingness to pay (WTP) for gains and willingness to accept (WTA) for corresponding losses. We conjecture that the greater 'evaluability' of the VR presentation reduces respondent judgement error and moderates reliance on the loss-aversion heuristic.
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 Elsevier in its journal Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.
Volume (Year): 58 (2009)
Issue (Month): 1 (July)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622870
Gain/loss asymmetry Loss aversion Non-market valuation Choice experiments Virtual reality Land use change Coastal zones;
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.:
- David J. Cooper, 1999. "Gaming against Managers in Incentive Systems: Experimental Results with Chinese Students and Chinese Managers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(4), pages 781-804, September.
- Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-61, November.
- Magat, Wesley A, et al, 2000. " An Iterative Choice Approach to Valuing Clean Lakes, Rivers, and Streams," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 7-43, July.
- K. K. Lancaster, 2010. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Levine's Working Paper Archive 1385, David K. Levine.
- Glenn Harrison & John List, 2004.
Artefactual Field Experiments
00058, The Field Experiments Website.
- Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007.
"Incentive and informational properties of preference questions,"
Environmental & Resource Economics,
European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
- Carson, Richard T & Groves, Theodore, 2010. "Incentive and Information Properties of Preference Questions," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt88d8644g, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
- Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. " Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-70, October.
- Wuyang Hu & Wiktor L. Adamowicz & Michele M. Veeman, 2006. "Labeling Context and Reference Point Effects in Models of Food Attribute Demand," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 1034-1049.
- Hsee, Christopher K., 1996. "The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 247-257, September.
- 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.
- Ian J. Bateman & Ian H. Langford & Alistair Munro & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2000. "Estimating Four Hicksian Welfare Measures for a Public Good: A Contingent Valuation Investigation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(3), pages 355-373.
- Bateman, Ian J, et al, 1997. "A Test of the Theory of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 112(2), pages 479-505, May.
- Fiore, Stephen M. & Harrison, Glenn W. & Hughes, Charles E. & Rutstrm, E. Elisabet, 2009. "Virtual experiments and environmental policy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 65-86, January.
- Horowitz, John K. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 2002. "A Review of WTA/WTP Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 426-447, November.
- Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132.
- Dan Ariely & George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 2003. ""Coherent Arbitrariness": Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 118(1), pages 73-105, February.
- Richard Carson & Robert Mitchell & Michael Hanemann & Raymond Kopp & Stanley Presser & Paul Ruud, 2003. "Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive Use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 257-286, July.
- Hess, Stephane & Rose, John M. & Hensher, David A., 2008. "Asymmetric preference formation in willingness to pay estimates in discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 847-863, September.
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page. reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).
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.