This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Designing Choice Experiments to Test for Anchoring and Framing Effects

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Marit Kragt (Crawford School of Economics and Government, the Australian National University, Australia)
Jeff Bennett () (Crawford School of Economics and Government, the Australian National University, Australia)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

Choice experiments (CE) are increasingly used as a stated preference technique to value changes in non-market goods. Respondents to a CE survey are asked to make repeated choices between alternatives. Each alternative is described by a number of attributes – the attributes levels vary across alternatives and choice sets. A monetary attribute is typically included so that marginal values for changes in the non-market attributes presented can be estimated. The monetary attribute has central importance. However, there has been limited research on the impacts on respondents’ choices of changing the (range in) levels of the monetary attribute presented in CE surveys. This is known as the ‘anchoring’ effect. The ‘framing’ of non-market attributes may also affect value estimates. Attribute framing refers to the context in which the attributes are presented to respondents in a CE survey. The challenge for CE practitioners is to identify how particular attribute frames may influence respondents’ choices. This research report provides a review of anchoring and framing effects in CEs. A CE questionnaire is described to incorporate tests for anchoring and framing effects. Ten hypotheses are developed about the impacts of various attribute ‘anchors’ and ‘frames’ on respondents’ choices and subsequent values estimated.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. 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.crawford.anu.edu.au/research_units/eerh/pdf/EERH_RR10.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School, Australian National University in its series Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports with number 0810.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: Dec 2008
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:een:eenhrr:0810

Contact details of provider:
Postal: JG Crawford Building #13, Australian National University ACT 0200
Web page: http://www.crawford.anu.edu.au/research_units/eerh/
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Meredith Bacon).

Related research
Keywords:

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.:

  1. Caussade, Sebastián & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Rizzi, Luis I. & Hensher, David A., 2005. "Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 621-640, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Ian J. Bateman & Roy Brouwer & Helen Davies & Brett H. Day & Amelie Deflandre & Salvatore Di Falco & Stavros Georgiou & David Hadley & Michael Hutchins & Andrew P. Jones & David Kay & Graham Leeks & M, 2006. "Analysing the Agricultural Costs and Non-market Benefits of Implementing the Water Framework Directive," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 57(2), pages 221-237, 07. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. Hanley, Nick & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Wright, Robert E., 2005. "Price vector effects in choice experiments: an empirical test," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 227-234, October. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  5. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. " Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 15(3), pages 435-62, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. Johnston, Robert J., 2006. "Is hypothetical bias universal? Validating contingent valuation responses using a binding public referendum," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 469-481, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  7. Sandra Lechner & Anne Rozan & François Laisney, 2003. "A model of the anchoring effect in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up," Working Papers of BETA 2003-07, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, ULP, Strasbourg. [Downloadable!]
  8. Chien, Yu-Lan & Huang, Cliff J. & Shaw, Daigee, 2005. "A general model of starting point bias in double-bounded dichotomous contingent valuation surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 362-377, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  9. Ajzen, Icek & Brown, Thomas C. & Rosenthal, Lori H., 1996. "Information Bias in Contingent Valuation: Effects of Personal Relevance, Quality of Information, and Motivational Orientation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 43-57, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  10. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  11. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  12. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Frykblom & Carl Lagerkvist, 2007. "Preferences with and without prices - does the price attribute affect behavior in stated preference surveys?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(2), pages 155-164, October. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  13. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  14. 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: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(1), pages 135-48, June.
  15. Emmanuel Flachaire & Guillaume Hollard, 2007. "Starting-point bias and respondent uncertainty in dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00175925_v1, HAL. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  16. Alpizar, Francisco & Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2001. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Working Papers in Economics 52, Göteborg University, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
  17. David Hensher, 2006. "Revealing Differences in Willingness to Pay due to the Dimensionality of Stated Choice Designs: An Initial Assessment," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 7-44, 05. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  18. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, 03. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  19. Ryan, Mandy & Wordsworth, Sarah, 2000. "Sensitivity of Willingness to Pay Estimates to the Level of Attributes in Discrete Choice Experiments," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 47(5), pages 504-24, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  20. William S. Breffle & Robert D. Rowe, 2002. "Comparing Choice Question Formats for Evaluating Natural Resource Tradeoffs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(2), pages 298-314. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  21. David A. Hensher, 2006. "How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 861-878. [Downloadable!]
  22. Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, American Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365, 05. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  23. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  24. Silverman, Jonathan & Klock, Mark, 1989. "The behavior of respondents in contingent valuation: Evidence on starting bids," Journal of Behavioral Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 51-60. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  25. David A. Hensher, 2008. "Joint Estimation of Process and Outcome in Choice Experiments and Implications for Willingness to Pay," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and University of Bath, vol. 42(2), pages 297-322, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  26. Danny Campbell & W. Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Incorporating Discontinuous Preferences into the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(3), pages 401-417, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  27. Holmes, Thomas P. & Bergstrom, John C. & Huszar, Eric & Kask, Susan B. & Orr, Fritz III, 2004. "Contingent valuation, net marginal benefits, and the scale of riparian ecosystem restoration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 19-30, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Cited by:
(explanations, 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.)

  1. Kragt, Marit E. & Bennett, J.W., 2009. "Using choice experiments to value river and estuary health in Tasmania with individual preference heterogeneity," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 48058, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? All the bibliographic data shown here has been contributed by volunteers, thereby helping to keep this service free.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-8.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.