Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

"If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question". Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchoring

Contents:

Author Info

  • Michaël Schwarzinger

    ()
    (ESIM - Epidémiologie, systèmes d'information, modélisation - INSERM : U707 - Université Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris VI, Center for Health Policy - Stanford University)

  • Fabrice Carrat

    (ESIM - Epidémiologie, systèmes d'information, modélisation - INSERM : U707 - Université Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris VI)

  • Stéphane Luchini

    (GREQAM - Groupement de Recherche en Économie Quantitative d'Aix-Marseille - Université de la Méditerranée - Aix-Marseille II - Université Paul Cézanne - Aix-Marseille III - Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (EHESS) - CNRS : UMR6579)

Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    The small sample size of contingent valuation (CV) surveys conducted in patients may have limited the use of the single-bounded (SB) dichotomous choice format which is recommended in environmental economics. In this paper, we explore two ways to increase the statistical efficiency of the SB format: (1) by the inclusion of proxies in addition to patients; (2) by the addition of a follow-up dichotomous question, i.e. the double-bounded (DB) dichotomous choice format. We found that patients (n=223) and spouses (n=64) answering on behalf of the patient had on average a similar willingness-to-pay for earlier alleviation of flu symptoms. However, a patient was significantly more likely to anchor his/her answer on the first bid as compared to a spouse. Finally, our original DB model with shift effect and heterogeneous anchoring reconciled the discrepancies found in willingness-to-pay statistics between SB and DB models in keeping with increased statistical efficiency.

    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.hal.inserm.fr/docs/00/63/61/79/PDF/JHE1346_R3_manuscript.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by HAL in its series Post-Print with number inserm-00636179.

    as in new window
    Length:
    Date of creation: Jul 2009
    Date of revision:
    Publication status: Published, Journal of Health Economics, 2009, 28, 4, 873-84
    Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:inserm-00636179

    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: http://www.hal.inserm.fr/inserm-00636179/en/
    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/

    Related research

    Keywords: Contingent valuation; double-bounded dichotomous choice; Patient; proxy; anchoring; structural shift; influenza;

    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. John C. Whitehead, 2002. "Incentive Incompatibility and Starting-Point Bias in Iterative Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(2), pages 285-297.
    2. Carthy, Trevor, et al, 1998. "On the Contingent Valuation of Safety and the Safety of Contingent Valuation: Part 2--The CV/SG "Chained" Approach," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 187-213, December.
    3. Watson, Verity & Ryan, Mandy, 2007. "Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 463-482, May.
    4. Nyquist, Hans, 1992. "Optimal Designs of Discrete Response Experiments in Contingent Valuation Studies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 74(3), pages 559-63, August.
    5. Kevin J. Boyle & Richard C. Bishop & Michael P. Welsh, 1985. "Starting Point Bias in Contingent Valuation Bidding Games," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(2), pages 188-194.
    6. Kanninen Barbara J., 1995. "Bias in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 114-125, January.
    7. Aprahamian, Frederic & Chanel, Olivier & Luchini, Stephane, 2008. "Heterogeneous anchoring and the shift effect in iterative valuation questions," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 12-20, January.
    8. Hanemann, W. Michael, 1985. "Some Issues In Continuous - And Discrete - Response Contingent Valuation Studies," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 14(1), April.
    9. Jones-Lee, M W, 1992. "Paternalistic Altruism and the Value of Statistical Life," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, Royal Economic Society, vol. 102(410), pages 80-90, January.
    10. Foreit, James R. & Foreit, Karen G. Fleischman, 2003. "The reliability and validity of willingness to pay surveys for reproductive health pricing decisions in developing countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 37-47, January.
    11. John Brazier & Ron Akehurst & Alan Brennan & Paul Dolan & Karl Claxton & Chris McCabe & Mark Sculpher & Aki Tsuchyia, 2005. "Should Patients Have a Greater Role in Valuing Health States?," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer Healthcare | Adis, Springer Healthcare | Adis, vol. 4(4), pages 201-208.
    12. Christine A. Kennedy, 2002. "Revealed preference valuation compared to contingent valuation: radon-induced lung cancer prevention," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(7), pages 585-598.
    13. Alberini Anna, 1995. "Efficiency vs Bias of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates: Bivariate and Interval-Data Models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 169-180, September.
    14. Timothy C. Haab, . "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a 'Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up' Questionnaire: A Comment," Working Papers, East Carolina University, Department of Economics 9712, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    15. Donald M. McLeod & Olvar Bergland, 1999. "Willingness-to-Pay Estimates Using the Double-Bounded Dichotomous-Choice Contingent Valuation Format: A Test for Validity and Precision in a Bayesian Framework," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(1), pages 115-125.
    16. T.A. Cameron & D.D. Huppert, 1988. ""Referendum" Contingent Valuation Estimates: Sensitivity to the Assignment of Offered Values," UCLA Economics Working Papers, UCLA Department of Economics 519, UCLA Department of Economics.
    17. Emmanuel Flachaire & Guillaume Hollard & Stéphane Luchini, 2007. "Heterogeneous anchoring in dichotomous choice valuation framework," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, De Boeck Université, vol. 73(4), pages 369-385.
    18. Carson, Richard T & Groves, Theodore, 2010. "Incentive and Information Properties of Preference Questions," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series, Department of Economics, UC San Diego qt88d8644g, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
    19. Smith, V. Kerry, 1985. "Some Issues In Discrete Response Contingent Valuation Studies," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 14(1), April.
    20. Kevin J. Boyle & F. Reed Johnson & Daniel W. McCollum, 1997. "Anchoring and Adjustment in Single-Bounded, Contingent-Valuation Questions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(5), pages 1495-1500.
    21. Donald Green & Karen Jacowitz & Daniel Kahneman & Daniel McFadden, 1995. "Referendum Contingent Valuation, Anchoring, and Willingness to Pay for Public Goods," Working Papers, University of California at Berkeley, Econometrics Laboratory Software Archive _010, University of California at Berkeley, Econometrics Laboratory Software Archive.
    22. Kevin J. Boyle & Hugh F. MacDonald & Hsiang-tai Cheng & Daniel W. McCollum, 1998. "Bid Design and Yea Saying in Single-Bounded, Dichotomous-Choice Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(1), pages 49-64.
    23. Richard D. Smith, 2003. "Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care:a critical assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 609-628.
    24. Alberini Anna, 1995. "Optimal Designs for Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys: Single-Bound, Double-Bound, and Bivariate Models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 287-306, May.
    25. Joseph Cooper & John Loomis, 1992. "Sensitivity of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates to Bid Design in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Models," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(2), pages 211-224.
    26. Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Robert Wright, 2003. "Estimating the monetary value of health care: lessons from environmental economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 3-16.
    27. 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, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(3), pages 329-341, July.
    28. Olivier Chanel & Stéphane Luchini, 2007. "Modeling Starting Point Bias as Unobserved Heterogeneity in Contingent Valuation Surveys: An Application to Air Pollution," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(2), pages 533-547.
    29. 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, vol. 81(1).
    30. Blumenschein, Karen & Johannesson, Magnus & Yokoyama, Krista K. & Freeman, Patricia R., 2001. "Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 441-457, May.
    31. Kanninen Barbara J., 1993. "Design of Sequential Experiments for Contingent Valuation Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages S1-S11, July.
    32. Beattie, Jane, et al, 1998. "On the Contingent Valuation of Safety and the Safety of Contingent Valuation: Part 1--Caveat Investigator," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 5-25, October.
    33. Damschroder, Laura J. & Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J. & Ubel, Peter A., 2005. "The impact of considering adaptation in health state valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 267-277, July.
    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. Stephane Luchini & Verity Watson, 2008. "Does respondent uncertainty explain framing effects in double bounded contingent valuation?," Working Papers halshs-00285861, HAL.
    2. Kang, Heechan & Haab, Timothy C. & Interis, Matthew G., 2013. "Identifying inconsistent responses in dichotomous choice contingent valuation with follow-up questions," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 396-411.

    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:hal:journl:inserm-00636179. 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: (CCSD).

    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.