IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Incentive and informational properties of preference questions

Listed author(s):
  • Richard Carson

    ()

  • Theodore Groves

Surveys are frequently used by businesses and governments to elicit information about the public’s preferences. They have become the most common way to gather preference information regarding goods, that are not (or are not yet) bought or sold in markets. In this paper we apply the standard neoclassical economic framework to generate predictions about how rational agents would answer such survey questions, which in turn implies how such survey data should be interpreted. In some situations, the standard economic model would be expected to have no predictive power. For situations where it does have predictive power, we compare different survey formats with respect to: (a) the information that the question itself reveals to the respondent, (b) the strategic incentives the respondent faces in answering the question, and (c) the information revealed by the respondent’s answer. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

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/s10640-007-9124-5
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.

Article provided by Springer & European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists in its journal Environmental and Resource Economics.

Volume (Year): 37 (2007)
Issue (Month): 1 (May)
Pages: 181-210

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:37:y:2007:i:1:p:181-210
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-007-9124-5
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.springer.com

Postal:

c/o EAERE Secretariat - Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei - Isola di San Giorgio Maggiore 8, I-30124 Venice, Italy

Phone: +39.041.2700438
Fax: +39.041.2700412
Web page: http://www.eaere.org/
Email:


More information through EDIRC

Order Information: Web: http://www.springer.com/economics/environmental/journal/10640/PS2

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. 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.
  2. Lankford, R. Hamilton, 1985. "Preferences of citizens for public expenditures on elementary and secondary education," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 1-20, January.
  3. Rabin, Matthew, 1997. "Psychology and Economics," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt8jd5z5j2, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
  4. Hurwicz, Leonid, 2005. "Incentive aspects of decentralization," Handbook of Mathematical Economics, in: K. J. Arrow & M.D. Intriligator (ed.), Handbook of Mathematical Economics, edition 2, volume 3, chapter 28, pages 1441-1482 Elsevier.
  5. Erwin Bulte & Aart de Zeeuw & Shelby Gerking & John List, 2004. "The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated wtp values: Evidence from a field study," Framed Field Experiments 00134, The Field Experiments Website.
  6. Taylor, Laura O. & McKee, Michael & Laury, Susan K. & Cummings, Ronald G., 2001. "Induced-value tests of the referendum voting mechanism," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 61-65, April.
  7. Kevin J. Boyle & F. Reed Johnson & Daniel W. McCollum & William H. Desvousges & Richard W. Dunford & Sara P. Hudson, 1996. "Valuing Public Goods: Discrete versus Continuous Contingent-Valuation Responses," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(3), pages 381-396.
  8. Jayson Lusk & Ted Schroeder, 2004. "Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks," Artefactual Field Experiments 00096, The Field Experiments Website.
  9. Richard T. Carson & Nicholas E. Flores & Kerry M. Martin & Jennifer L. Wright, 1996. "Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 80-99.
  10. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, 03.
  11. Ronald G. Cummings & Laura Osborne Taylor, 1998. "Does Realism Matter in Contingent Valuation Surveys?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 203-215.
  12. Zhao, Jinhua & Kling, Catherine L., 2004. "Willingness-To-Pay, Compensating Variation, and the Cost of Commitment," Staff General Research Papers Archive 1875, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  13. 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.
  14. Hausman, Jerry A. & Ruud, Paul A., 1987. "Specifying and testing econometric models for rank-ordered data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1-2), pages 83-104.
  15. Bergstrom, Theodore & Blume, Lawrence & Varian, Hal, 1986. "On the private provision of public goods," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 25-49, February.
  16. 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.
  17. Vossler, Christian A. & Kerkvliet, Joe & Polasky, Stephen & Gainutdinova, Olesya, 2003. "Externally validating contingent valuation: an open-space survey and referendum in Corvallis, Oregon," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 261-277, June.
  18. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
  19. Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Liljas & Per-Olov Johansson, 1998. "An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions and real purchase decisions," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 643-647.
  20. Groves, Theodore, 1973. "Incentives in Teams," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 617-631, July.
  21. Bateman, Ian J, et al, 1997. "Does Part-Whole Bias Exist? An Experimental Investigation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(441), pages 322-332, March.
  22. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & ,, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, May.
  23. Holt, Charles A, 1986. "Preference Reversals and the Independence Axiom," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(3), pages 508-515, June.
  24. David Aadland & Arthur J. Caplan, 2003. "Cheap Talk Revisited: New Evidence from CVM," Others 0301001, EconWPA.
  25. Christian Vossler & Michael McKee, 2006. "Induced-Value Tests of Contingent Valuation Elicitation Mechanisms," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 35(2), pages 137-168, October.
  26. Champ, Patricia A. & Bishop, Richard C. & Brown, Thomas C. & McCollum, Daniel W., 1997. "Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 151-162, June.
  27. Crawford, Vincent P & Sobel, Joel, 1982. "Strategic Information Transmission," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(6), pages 1431-1451, November.
  28. Grether, David M & Plott, Charles R, 1979. "Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 623-638, September.
  29. Patricia A. Champ & Richard C. Bishop, 2006. "Is Willingness to Pay for a Public Good Sensitive to the Elicitation Format?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(2), pages 162-173.
  30. William J. Infosino, 1986. "Forecasting New Product Sales from Likelihood of Purchase Ratings," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 372-384.
  31. Kling, Catherine L. & Zhao, Jinhua, 2001. "New Explanation for the Wtp/Wta Disparity (A)," Staff General Research Papers Archive 5113, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  32. B. Douglas Bernheim & Antonio Rangel, 2008. "Beyond Revealed Preference: Choice Theoretic Foundations for Behavioral Welfare Economics," NBER Working Papers 13737, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  33. 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 260-266, March.
  34. Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July.
  35. Bateman, Ian J. & Langford, Ian H. & Turner, R. Kerry & Willis, Ken G. & Garrod, Guy D., 1995. "Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 161-179, February.
  36. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 1987. "A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 226-247, September.
  37. Timothy C. Haab & Ju-Chin Huang & John C. Whitehead, "undated". "Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible? A Comment," Working Papers 9708, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
  38. Zhao, Jinhua & Kling, Catherine L., 2001. "A new explanation for the WTP/WTA disparity," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 73(3), pages 293-300, December.
  39. Moulin, Herve, 1994. "Social choice," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 31, pages 1091-1125 Elsevier.
  40. Carson, Richard T & Groves, Theodore, 2010. "Incentive and Information Properties of Preference Questions," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt88d8644g, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
  41. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
  42. McFadden, Daniel, 1999. "Rationality for Economists?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 73-105, December.
  43. Johnson, F. Reed & Desvousges, William H., 1997. "Estimating Stated Preferences with Rated-Pair Data: Environmental, Health, and Employment Effects of Energy Programs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 79-99, September.
  44. Randall, Alan & Ives, Berry & Eastman, Clyde, 1974. "Bidding games for valuation of aesthetic environmental improvements," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 132-149, August.
  45. Magat, Wesley A. & Kip Viscusi, W. & Huber, Joel, 1988. "Paired comparison and contingent valuation approaches to morbidity risk valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 395-411, December.
  46. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
  47. Alan Randall, 1994. "Difficulty with the Travel Cost Method," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(1), pages 88-96.
  48. Tversky, Amos & Slovic, Paul & Kahneman, Daniel, 1990. "The Causes of Preference Reversal," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 204-217, March.
  49. 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.
  50. Mark J. Machina, 1995. "Non-Expected Utility and The Robustness of the Classical Insurance Paradigm," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 20(1), pages 9-50, June.
  51. Karni, Edi & Safra, Zvi, 1987. ""Preference Reversal' and the Observability of Preferences by Experimental Methods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(3), pages 675-685, May.
  52. 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.
  53. Lohmann, Susanne, 1994. "Information Aggregation through Costly Political Action," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(3), pages 518-530, June.
  54. Cummings, Ronald G, et al, 1997. "Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(3), pages 609-621, June.
  55. 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.
  56. Burton, Anthony C. & Carson, Katherine S. & Chilton, Susan M. & Hutchinson, W. George, 2003. "An experimental investigation of explanations for inconsistencies in responses to second offers in double referenda," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 472-489, November.
  57. Vivien Foster & Ian J. Bateman & David Harley, 1997. "Real And Hypothetical Willingness To Pay For Environmental Preservation: A Non-Experimental Comparison," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1-3), pages 123-137.
  58. McFadden, Daniel, 1980. "Econometric Models for Probabilistic Choice among Products," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(3), pages 13-29, July.
  59. Brookshire, David S. & Ives, Berry C. & Schulze, William D., 1976. "The valuation of aesthetic preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 325-346, December.
  60. Carson, Katherine Silz & Chilton, Susan M. & Hutchinson, W. George, 2009. "Necessary conditions for demand revelation in double referenda," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 219-225, March.
  61. Rowe, Robert D. & Schulze, William D. & Breffle, William S., 1996. "A Test for Payment Card Biases," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 178-185, September.
  62. Collins, Jill P. & Vossler, Christian A., 2009. "Incentive compatibility tests of choice experiment value elicitation questions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 226-235, September.
  63. Hanemann, W Michael, 1991. "Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(3), pages 635-647, June.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:37:y:2007:i:1:p:181-210. 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: (Sonal Shukla)

or (Rebekah McClure)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.