IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v74y1998i1p49-64.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bid Design and Yea Saying in Single-Bounded, Dichotomous-Choice Questions

Author

Listed:
  • Kevin J. Boyle
  • Hugh F. MacDonald
  • Hsiang-tai Cheng
  • Daniel W. McCollum

Abstract

Bid design in dichotomous-choice questions is an issue of considerable concern and debate. This paper investigates the effect of bid structures on welfare estimates using two pretest distributions (from open-ended and dichotomous-choice questions) and three bid structures (two-bid, five-bid, and multi-bid designs). Both Monte Carlo simulations and responses from a field experiment are used. Results support the growing evidence that "yea saying" occurs and the problem becomes worse when bids are clustered at discrete bid levels in the upper tail of the distribution. The systematic effect of bids on responses to dichotomous-choice questions reduces the effectiveness of optimal bid designs.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:74:y:1998:i:1:p:49-64
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3147212
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:74:y:1998:i:1:p:49-64. 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: (). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.