Heterogeneous anchoring in dichotomous choice valuation framework
This article addresses the important issue of anchoring in contingent valuation surveys that use the double-bounded elicitation format. Anchoring occurs when responses to the follow-up dichotomous choice valuation question are influenced by the bid presented in the initial dichotomous choice question. Specifically, we adapt a theory from psychology to characterize respondents as those who are likely to anchor and those who are not. Using a model developed by Herriges and Shogren (1996), our method appears successful in discriminating between those who anchor and those who did not. An important result is that when controlling for anchoring – and allowing the degree of anchoring to differ between respondent groups – the efficiency of the double-bounded welfare estimate is greater than for the initial dichotomous choice question. This contrasts with earlier research that finds that the potential efficiency gain from the double-bounded questions is lost when anchoring is controlled for and that we are better off not asking follow-up questions. JEL Classification: Q26, C81, D71.
Volume (Year): 73 (2007)
Issue (Month): 4 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.cairn.info/revue-recherches-economiques-de-louvain.htm|
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.:
- 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, vol. 14(1), April.
- 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.
- Donald Green & Karen Jacowitz & Daniel Kahneman & Daniel McFadden, 1995. "Referendum Contingent Valuation, Anchoring, and Willingness to Pay for Public Goods," Working Papers _010, University of California at Berkeley, Econometrics Laboratory Software Archive.
- 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, vol. 14(1), April.
- 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.
- Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Staff General Research Papers Archive 1501, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- Viaud, Jean & Roland-Levy, Christine, 2000. "A positional and representational analysis of consumption. Households when facing debt and credit," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 411-432, August.
- David M. Grether, 1980. "Bayes Rule as a Descriptive Model: The Representativeness Heuristic," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 95(3), pages 537-557.
- Hollard, G. & Luchini, S., 1999. "Theories du choix social et representations: analyse d'une enquete sur le tourisme cert en Camargue," G.R.E.Q.A.M. 99b06, Universite Aix-Marseille III.
- John A. List, 2004. "Neoclassical Theory Versus Prospect Theory: Evidence from the Marketplace," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(2), pages 615-625, 03.
- John A. List, 2003. "Neoclassical Theory Versus Prospect Theory: Evidence from the Marketplace," NBER Working Papers 9736, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- John List, 2004. "Neoclassical theory versus prospect theory: Evidence from the marketplace," Framed Field Experiments 00174, The Field Experiments Website.