Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies

Contents:

Author Info

  • Day, Brett
  • Bateman, Ian J.
  • Carson, Richard T.
  • Dupont, Diane
  • Louviere, Jordan J.
  • Morimoto, Sanae
  • Scarpa, Riccardo
  • Wang, Paul

Abstract

We present an experiment designed to investigate the presence and nature of ordering effects within repeat-response stated preference (SP) studies. Our experiment takes the form of a large sample, full-factorial, discrete choice SP exercise investigating preferences for tap water quality improvements. Our study simultaneously investigates a variety of different forms of position-dependent and precedent-dependent ordering effect in preferences for attributes and options and in response randomness. We also examine whether advanced disclosure of the choice tasks impacts on the probability of exhibiting ordering effects of those different types. We analyze our data both non-parametrically and parametrically and find robust evidence for ordering effects. We also find that the patterns of order effect in respondents' preferences are significantly changed but not eradicated by the advanced disclosure of choice tasks a finding that offers insights into the choice behaviors underpinning order effects.

Download Info

If 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.
File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069611001239
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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 Info

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.

Volume (Year): 63 (2012)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
Pages: 73-91

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:eee:jeeman:v:63:y:2012:i:1:p:73-91

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622870

Related research

Keywords: Stated preference; Discrete choice experiment; Ordering effect; Advanced disclosure;

References

References listed on IDEAS
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.:
as in new window
  1. Butler, J S & Moffitt, Robert, 1982. "A Computationally Efficient Quadrature Procedure for the One-Factor Multinomial Probit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, Econometric Society, vol. 50(3), pages 761-64, May.
  2. Cameron Trudy Ann & Quiggin John, 1994. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up Questionnaire," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 218-234, November.
  3. Bateman, Ian J. & Burgess, Diane & Hutchinson, W. George & Matthews, David I., 2008. "Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 127-141, March.
  4. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
  5. Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 2004. "What's it worth? An examination of historical trends and future directions in environmental valuation," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(3), September.
  6. Ariely, Dan & Loewenstein, George & Prelec, Drazen, 2006. "Tom Sawyer and the construction of value," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 1-10, May.
  7. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2008. "Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: Evidence from an empirical study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 275-285, November.
  8. Ready Richard C. & Whitehead John C. & Blomquist Glenn C., 1995. "Contingent Valuation When Respondents Are Ambivalent," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 181-196, September.
  9. John List, 2003. "Does market experience eliminate market anomalies?," Natural Field Experiments, The Field Experiments Website 00297, The Field Experiments Website.
  10. Ian J. Bateman & Alistair Munro & Gregory L. Poe, 2008. "Decoy Effects in Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation: Asymmetric Dominance," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 115-127.
  11. Foster, Vivien & Mourato, Susana, 2002. "Testing for Consistency in Contingent Ranking Experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 309-328, September.
  12. Scott J. Savage & Donald M. Waldman, 2008. "Learning and fatigue during choice experiments: a comparison of online and mail survey modes," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(3), pages 351-371.
  13. Jeremy Clark & Lana Friesen, 2006. "The Causes of Order Effects in Contingent Valuation Surveys: An Experimental Investigation," Working Papers in Economics, University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance 06/06, University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance.
  14. Thomas P. Holmes & Kevin J. Boyle, 2005. "Dynamic Learning and Context-Dependence in Sequential, Attribute-Based, Stated-Preference Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(1).
  15. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Jude, Simon, 2009. "Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 106-118, July.
  16. Riccardo Scarpa & Sandra Notaro & Jordan Louviere & Roberta Raffaelli, 2010. "Exploring Scale Effects of Best/Worst Rank Ordered Choice Data to Estimate Benefits of Tourism in Alpine Grazing Commons," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(3), pages 809-824.
  17. Swait, Joffre & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2001. " The Influence of Task Complexity on Consumer Choice: A Latent Class Model of Decision Strategy Switching," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(1), pages 135-48, June.
  18. Jacinto Braga & Chris Starmer, 2005. "Preference Anomalies, Preference Elicitation and the Discovered Preference Hypothesis," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 55-89, 09.
  19. DeShazo, J. R., 2002. "Designing Transactions without Framing Effects in Iterative Question Formats," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 360-385, May.
  20. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132.
  21. G. Cornelis van Kooten & Emina Krcmar & Erwin H. Bulte, 2001. "Preference Uncertainty in Non-Market Valuation: A Fuzzy Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(3), pages 487-500.
  22. Day, Brett & Pinto Prades, Jose-Luis, 2010. "Ordering anomalies in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 271-285, May.
  23. Bateman, Ian J. & Langford, Ian H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2001. "Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 191-213, July.
  24. Dan Ariely & George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 2003. ""Coherent Arbitrariness": Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, MIT Press, vol. 118(1), pages 73-105, February.
  25. Johnson, F. Reed & Desvousges, William H., 1997. "Estimating Stated Preferences with Rated-Pair Data: Environmental, Health, and Employment Effects of Energy Programs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 79-99, September.
  26. Bateman, Ian J. & Cole, Matthew & Cooper, Philip & Georgiou, Stavros & Hadley, David & Poe, Gregory L., 2004. "On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 71-93, January.
  27. Kevin J. Boyle & Richard C. Bishop & Michael P. Welsh, 1985. "Starting Point Bias in Contingent Valuation Bidding Games," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(2), pages 188-194.
  28. David Hensher & William Greene, 2010. "Non-attendance and dual processing of common-metric attributes in choice analysis: a latent class specification," Empirical Economics, Springer, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 413-426, October.
  29. Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Staff General Research Papers, Iowa State University, Department of Economics 1501, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  30. Ian J. Bateman & Brett H. Day & Diane P. Dupont & Stavros Georgiou, 2009. "Procedural Invariance Testing of the One-and-One-Half-Bound Dichotomous Choice Elicitation Method," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, MIT Press, vol. 91(4), pages 806-820, November.
  31. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
  32. Andrea Isoni, 2011. "The willingness-to-accept/willingness-to-pay disparity in repeated markets: loss aversion or ‘bad-deal’ aversion?," Theory and Decision, Springer, Springer, vol. 71(3), pages 409-430, September.
  33. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Kragt, Marit E., 2013. "Comparing models of unobserved heterogeneity in environmental choice experiments," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society 152198, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
  2. Ihli, Hanna Julia & Musshoff, Oliver, 2013. "Investment Behavior of Ugandan Smallholder Farmers: An Experimental Analysis," Discussion Papers, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development 154775, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
  3. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
  4. Marcella Veronesi & Tim Schloendorn & Astrid Zabel & Stefanie Engel, 2012. "Designing Redd+ Schemes When Forest Users Are Not Forest Landowners: Evidence From A Survey-Based Experiment In Kenya," Working Papers, University of Verona, Department of Economics 15/2012, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
  5. Daniel R. Petrolia & Matthew G. Interis & Joonghyun Hwang, 2014. "America’s Wetland? A National Survey of Willingness to Pay for Restoration of Louisiana’s Coastal Wetlands," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(1), pages 17 - 37.
  6. Ihli, Hanna Julia & Musshoff, Oliver, 2013. "Understanding the Investment Behavior of Ugandan Smallholder Farmers: An Experimental Analysis," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C., Agricultural and Applied Economics Association 150331, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  7. Cash, Sean B. & Slade, Peter & Cranfield, John, 2013. "The Chicken Wears No Skin: Ordering E ects in Elicitation of Willingness to Pay for Multiple Credence Attributes in Ethical and Novel Food Products," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C., Agricultural and Applied Economics Association 150364, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  8. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Morten Mørkbak & Søren Olsen, 2014. "A Meta-study Investigating the Sources of Protest Behaviour in Stated Preference Surveys," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 58(1), pages 35-57, May.
  9. repec:ner:leuven:urn:hdl:123456789/340164 is not listed on IDEAS
  10. Shelby Gerking & Mark Dickie & Marcella Veronesi, 2012. "Valuation of Human Health: An Integrated Model of Willingness to Pay for Mortality and Morbidity Risk Reductions," NCEE Working Paper Series, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 201207, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Oct 2012.
  11. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Marek Giergiczny & William H. Greene, 2012. "Learning and Fatigue Effects Revisited. The Impact of Accounting for Unobservable Preference and Scale Heterogeneity on Perceived Ordering Effects in Multiple Choice Task Discrete Choice Experiments," Working Papers, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw 2012-08, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
  12. Baker, Rick & Ruting, Brad, 2014. "Environmental Policy Analysis: A Guide to Non‑Market Valuation," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Maquarie, Australia, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society 165810, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jeeman:v:63:y:2012:i:1:p:73-91. See general 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.