IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Implications of Bid Design and Willingness-To-Pay Distribution for Starting Point Bias in Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys

  • Marcella Veronesi


  • Anna Alberini
  • Joseph Cooper

We examine starting point bias in CV surveys with dichotomous choice payment questions and follow-ups, and double-bounded models of the WTP responses. We wish to investigate (1) the seriousness of the biases for the location and scale parameters of WTP in the presence of starting point bias; (2) whether or not these biases depend on the distribution of WTP and on the bids used; and (3) how well a commonly used diagnostic for starting point bias—a test of the null that bid set dummies entered in the right-hand side of the WTP model are jointly equal to zero—performs under various circumstances. Because starting point bias cannot be separately identified in any reliable manner from biases caused by model specification, we use simulation approaches to address this issue. Our Monte Carlo simulations suggest that the effect of ignoring starting point bias is complex and depends on the true distribution of WTP. Bid set dummies tend to soak up misspecifications in the distribution assumed by the researcher for the latent WTP, rather than capturing the presence of starting point bias. Their power in detecting starting point bias is low.

(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

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:
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 European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists in its journal Environmental and Resource Economics.

Volume (Year): 49 (2011)
Issue (Month): 2 (June)
Pages: 199-215

in new window

Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:49:y:2011:i:2:p:199-215
Contact details of provider: Web page:

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. 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.
  2. Emmanuel Flachaire & Guillaume Hollard, 2005. "Controlling starting-point bias in double-bounded contingent valuation surveys," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques v05076, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
  3. Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Staff General Research Papers 1501, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  4. 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, HAL.
  5. 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.
  6. Dan Ariely & George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 2003. ""Coherent Arbitrariness": Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 118(1), pages 73-105, February.
  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, UDS, Strasbourg.
  8. DeShazo, J. R., 2002. "Designing Transactions without Framing Effects in Iterative Question Formats," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 360-385, May.
  9. 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, vol. 89(2), pages 533-547.
  10. Cooper, Joseph C., 2002. "Flexible Functional Form Estimation of Willingness to Pay Using Dichotomous Choice Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 267-279, March.
  11. Aprahamian, Frederic & Chanel, Olivier & Luchini, Stephane, 2008. "Heterogeneous anchoring and the shift effect in iterative valuation questions," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 12-20, January.
  12. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2008. "Do emotions matter? Coherent preferences under anchoring and emotional effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 700-711, July.
  13. Whittington, Dale, et al, 1990. "Estimating the Willingness to Pay for Water Services in Developing Countries: A Case Study of the Use of Contingent Valuation Surveys in Southern Haiti," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(2), pages 293-311, January.
  14. Yu-Lan Chien & Cliff J. Huang & Daigee Shaw, 2004. "A General Model of Starting Point Bias in Double-Bounded Dichotomous Contingent Valuation Surveys," IEAS Working Paper : academic research 04-A008, Institute of Economics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan.
  15. John Crooker & Joseph Herriges, 2004. "Parametric and Semi-Nonparametric Estimation of Willingness-to-Pay in the Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Framework," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 27(4), pages 451-480, April.
  16. 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.
  17. Huang, Ju-Chin & Nychka, Douglas W. & Smith, V. Kerry, 2008. "Semi-parametric discrete choice measures of willingness to pay," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 91-94, October.
  18. 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.
  19. Cameron Trudy Ann & Quiggin John, 1994. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up Questionnaire," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 218-234, November.
  20. Masahide Watanabe, 2010. "Nonparametric Estimation of Mean Willingness to Pay from Discrete Response Valuation Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1114-1135.
  21. Jeffrey R. Czajkowski, 2009. "Modeling Shifts in Willingness to Pay from a Bayesian Updating Perspective," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(2), pages 308-328.
  22. Cooper Joseph C., 1993. "Optimal Bid Selection for Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 25-40, January.
  23. Bergman, Oscar & Ellingsen, Tore & Johannesson, Magnus & Svensson, Cicek, 2010. "Anchoring and cognitive ability," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(1), pages 66-68, April.
  24. Roberto LeÛn & Carmelo J. LeÛn, 2003. "Single or double bounded contingent valuation? A Bayesian test," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 50(2), pages 174-188, 05.
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:49:y:2011:i:2:p:199-215. 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 (Christopher F. Baum)

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.