Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments

Contents:

Author Info

  • Frédéric Roy-Vigneault
  • Daniel Rondeau

    ()

  • Maurice Doyon

    ()

  • Christian A. Vossler

Abstract

This paper explores methodological issues surrounding the use of discrete choice experiments to elicit values for public goods. We develop an explicit game-theoretic model of individual decisions to a series of choice sets, providing general conditions under which surveys with repeated binary choices are incentive compatible. We complement the theory with a framed field experiment, with treatments that span the spectrum from incentive compatible, financially binding decisions to decisions with no direct financial consequences. The results suggest truthful preference revelation is possible in surveys, provided that respondents view their decisions as having more than a weak chance of influencing policy. Cette étude s’intéresse à des aspects méthodologiques associés à l’utilisation d’expériences avec choix discrets pour évaluer des biens publics. Nous avons développé un modèle explicite de jeux théoriques pour des décisions individuelles à des séries de choix, avec conditions générales sous lesquelles un questionnaire avec des choix binaires répétés incite la révélation des valeurs. Ce développement théorique est suivi d’expériences terrains avec traitements qui couvrent le spectre des incitatifs de la révélation des valeurs, passant de la décision avec mise en place réelle du projet et paiements réels de la part des participants, à celle sans aucune conséquence financière directe et avec projets hypothétiques. Les résultats indiquent qu’il est possible d’obtenir une révélation des valeurs réelles en situation hypothétique, si les participants pensent que leurs décisions ont un potentiel d’impact significatif sur une éventuelle politique.

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.cirano.qc.ca/pdf/publication/2010s-43.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by CIRANO in its series CIRANO Working Papers with number 2010s-43.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: 01 Oct 2010
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:cir:cirwor:2010s-43

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 2020 rue University, 25e étage, Montréal, Quéc, H3A 2A5
Phone: (514) 985-4000
Fax: (514) 985-4039
Email:
Web page: http://www.cirano.qc.ca/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: discrete choice experiment; framed field experiment; mechanism design theory; stated preferences; consequentiality ; expériences avec choix discrets; expérience terrain; préférences révélées; conséquences; biais hypothétique;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

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. Asher A. Blass & Saul Lach & Charles F. Manski, 2008. "Using Elicited Choice Probabilities to Estimate Random Utility Models: Preferences for Electricity Reliability," NBER Working Papers 14451, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  2. Beggs, S. & Cardell, S. & Hausman, J., 1981. "Assessing the potential demand for electric cars," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
  3. Carson, Richard T. & Flores, Nicholas E. & Martin, Kerry M. & Wright, Jennifer L., 1995. "Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods," 1995 Conference (39th), February 14-16, 1995, Perth, Australia 148793, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
  4. 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.
  5. List John A. & Sinha Paramita & Taylor Michael H., 2006. "Using Choice Experiments to Value Non-Market Goods and Services: Evidence from Field Experiments," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-39, January.
  6. Herriges, Joseph & Kling, Catherine & Liu, Chih-Chen & Tobias, Justin, 2010. "What are the consequences of consequentiality?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 67-81, January.
  7. Laura Taylor & Mark Morrison & Kevin Boyle, 2010. "Exchange Rules and the Incentive Compatibility of Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(2), pages 197-220, October.
  8. Messer, Kent D. & Poe, Gregory L. & Rondeau, Daniel & Schulze, William D. & Vossler, Christian A., 2008. "Social Preferences and Voting: An Exploration Using a Novel Preference Revealing Mechanism," Working Papers 51132, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
  9. Carlsson, Fredrik & Johansson-Stenman, Olof, 2010. "Scale factors and hypothetical referenda: A clarifying note," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 286-292, May.
  10. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
  11. Vossler, Christian A. & Evans, Mary F., 2009. "Bridging the gap between the field and the lab: Environmental goods, policy maker input, and consequentiality," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 338-345, November.
  12. Carson, Richard T & Flores, Nicholas A, 2000. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt75k752s7, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
  13. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
  14. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
  15. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Poe, Gregory L. & Ethier, Robert G. & Schulze, William D., 2002. "Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 391-425, November.
  16. Takanori Ida & Rei Goto, 2009. "Simultaneous Measurement Of Time And Risk Preferences: Stated Preference Discrete Choice Modeling Analysis Depending On Smoking Behavior," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 50(4), pages 1169-1182, November.
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. 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, vol. 29(1), pages 17 - 37.
  2. Baker, Rick & Ruting, Brad, 2014. "Environmental Policy Analysis: A Guide to Non‑Market Valuation," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Maquarie, Australia 165810, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
  3. Vossler, Christian & Watson, Sharon, 2012. "Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: Testing the validity of stated preferences in the field," MPRA Paper 48109, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  4. John A. List & Michael K. Price, 2013. "Using Field Experiments in Environmental and Resource Economics," NBER Working Papers 19289, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  5. Wiktor Adamowicz & Mark Dickie & Shelby Gerking & Marcella Veronesi & David Zinner, 2013. "Household Decision-Making and Valuation of Environmental Health Risks to Parents and their Children," NCEE Working Paper Series 201306, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Dec 2013.
  6. Timothy C. Haab & Matthew G. Interis & Daniel R. Petrolia & John C. Whitehead, 2013. "From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman’s “Dubious to Hopeless” Critique of Contingent Valuation," Working Papers 13-07, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
  7. Harin, Alexander, 2014. "Problems of utility and prospect theories. A ”certain-uncertain” inconsistency of the random-lottery incentive system," MPRA Paper 55706, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  8. Jones, Luke R. & Cherry, Christopher R. & Vu, Tuan A. & Nguyen, Quang N., 2013. "The effect of incentives and technology on the adoption of electric motorcycles: A stated choice experiment in Vietnam," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 1-11.
  9. Loomis, John B., 2014. "2013WAEA Keynote Address: Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(1), April.
  10. Minjuan Zhao & Robert Johnston & Eric Schultz, 2013. "What to Value and How? Ecological Indicator Choices in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(1), pages 3-25, September.
  11. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Bartczak, Anna & Giergiczny, Marek & Navrud, Stale & Żylicz, Tomasz, 2014. "Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-12.
  12. Yao, Richard T. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim D. & Rose, John M. & Palma, João H.N. & Harrison, Duncan R., 2014. "Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 90-101.

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:cir:cirwor:2010s-43. 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: (Webmaster).

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.