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

Preferences with and without prices - does the price attribute affect behavior in stated preference surveys?

Contents:

Author Info

  • Fredrik Carlsson

    ()

  • Peter Frykblom
  • Carl Lagerkvist

Abstract

The experimental as well as the nonmarket valuation literature include several examples of how an introduced price can affect behavior in otherwise not expected ways. It has become standard to include a price vector as an attribute in choice experiments, something that enables us to estimate a marginal willingness to pay for other attributes. We test the impact on preferences by an inclusion of a price in a choice experiment. Preferences are affected, as might be expected. However, also the relative ranking of individual attributes is affected. We end on a positive note, observing that a price seems to drive out zero price opinions, e.g. warm glow values.

(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

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://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10640-006-9068-1
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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 European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists in its journal Environmental and Resource Economics.

Volume (Year): 38 (2007)
Issue (Month): 2 (October)
Pages: 155-164

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:38:y:2007:i:2:p:155-164

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100263

Related research

Keywords: Choice experiment; Non-market valuation; Preference reversal; Warm glow; D12; Q19; Q51;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

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. Slovic, Paul & Lichtenstein, Sarah, 1983. "Preference Reversals: A Broader Perspective," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 596-605, September.
  2. repec:feb:artefa:0067 is not listed on IDEAS
  3. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
  4. P. Frykblom & Jason Shogren, 2000. "An Experimental Testing of Anchoring Effects in Discrete Choice Questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(3), pages 329-341, July.
  5. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
  6. John A. List & Robert P. Berrens & Alok K. Bohara & Joe Kerkvliet, 2004. "Examining the Role of Social Isolation on Stated Preferences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(3), pages 741-752, June.
  7. 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.
  8. Cummings, Ronald G & Harrison, Glenn W & Rutstrom, E Elisabet, 1995. "Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 260-66, March.
  9. Andreoni, James, 1989. "Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 97(6), pages 1447-58, December.
  10. Kenneth Train, 2003. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Online economics textbooks, SUNY-Oswego, Department of Economics, number emetr2, Spring.
  11. John List, 2001. "Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auctions for sportscards," Framed Field Experiments 00163, The Field Experiments Website.
  12. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
  13. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2001. "Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?: Application to the Valuation of the Environment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 179-192, March.
  14. Gregory L. Poe & Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365.
  15. Jacinto Braga & Chris Starmer, 2005. "Preference Anomalies, Preference Elicitation and the Discovered Preference Hypothesis," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 55-89, 09.
  16. John A. List, 2002. "Preference Reversals of a Different Kind: The "More Is Less" Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1636-1643, December.
  17. Seidl, Christian, 2002. " Preference Reversal," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(5), pages 621-55, December.
  18. Stirling Bryan & David Parry, 2002. "Structural reliability of conjoint measurement in health care: an empirical investigation," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(5), pages 561-567.
  19. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-19, November.
  20. 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.
  21. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, April.
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. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2010. "Modeling Heterogeneity in Consumer Preferences for Select Food Safety Attributes in China," 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado 61175, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  2. Vásquez, William F., 2011. "Household preferences and governance of water services: A hedonic analysis from rural Guatemala," IFPRI discussion papers 1152, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  3. Colombo, S. & Angus, A. & Morris, J. & Parsons, D.J. & Brawn, M. & Stacey, K. & Hanley, N., 2009. "A comparison of citizen and "expert" preferences using an attribute-based approach to choice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2834-2841, September.
  4. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria & Elina Lampi, 2009. "Dealing with ignored attributes in choice experiments on valuation of Sweden's environmental quality objectives," Jena Economic Research Papers 2009-089, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Max-Planck-Institute of Economics.
  5. Ubilava, David & Foster, Kenneth A., 2007. "Targeting Consumers by Store - The Basis of Increased Sales with Less Advertising," 2007 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2007, Mobile, Alabama 34909, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
  6. Morten Mørkbak & Tove Christensen & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2010. "Choke Price Bias in Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(4), pages 537-551, April.
  7. Ovchinnikova, Natalia V. & Czap, Hans J. & Lynne, Gary D. & Larimer, Christopher W., 2009. ""I don't want to be selling my soul": Two experiments in environmental economics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 221-229, March.
  8. Ubilava, David & Foster, Kenneth, 2009. "Quality certification vs. product traceability: Consumer preferences for informational attributes of pork in Georgia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 305-310, June.
  9. Laurent Muller & Bernard Ruffieux, 2011. "Do price-tags influence consumers’ willingness to pay? On the external validity of using auctions for measuring value," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 181-202, May.
  10. Zander, Kerstin K. & Straton, Anna, 2010. "An economic assessment of the value of tropical river ecosystem services: Heterogeneous preferences among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2417-2426, October.
  11. Ubilava, David & Foster, Kenneth A. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Nilsson, Tomas K.H., 2008. "Differences In U.S. Consumer Preferences For Certified Pork Chops When Facing Branded Vs. Non-Branded Choices," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6194, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  12. Moore, Rebecca, 2013. "Prioritizing Ecosystem Service Protection and Conservation Efforts in the Forest Plantations of the Red Hills," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 42(1), April.
  13. Liljenstolpe, Carolina, 2005. "Valuing Animal Welfare with Choice Experiments: An Application to Swedish Pig Production," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24503, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

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:kap:enreec:v:38:y:2007:i:2:p:155-164. 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: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F. Baum).

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.