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

A game of two halves? Incentive incompatibility, starting point bias and the bidding game contingent valuation method

Listed author(s):
  • Paul McNamee

    (Health Economics Research Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK)

  • Laura Ternent

    (Health Economics Research Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK)

  • Adjima Gbangou

    (Centre de Recherche en Sante de Nouna (CRSN), Nouna, Burkina Faso)

  • David Newlands

    (Aberdeen Business School, University of Aberdeen, UK)

Registered author(s):

    The bidding game (BG) method of contingent valuation is one way to increase the precision of willingness to pay (WTP) estimates relative to the single dichotomous choice approach. However, there is evidence that the method may lead to incentive incompatible responses and be associated with starting point bias. While previous studies in health using BGs test for starting point bias, none have also investigated incentive incompatibility. Using a sample of respondents resident in Burkina Faso, West Africa, this paper examines whether the BG method is associated with both incentive incompatibility and starting point bias. We find evidence for both effects. However, average WTP values remained largely unaffected after accounting for both factors in multivariate analyses. The results suggest that the BG method is an acceptable technique in settings where prices for goods are flexible. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

    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/10.1002/hec.1448
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. in its journal Health Economics.

    Volume (Year): 19 (2010)
    Issue (Month): 1 ()
    Pages: 75-87

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:19:y:2010:i:1:p:75-87
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.1448
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749

    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. Onwujekwe, Obinna & Hanson, Kara & Fox-Rushby, Julia, 2005. "Do divergences between stated and actual willingness to pay signify the existence of bias in contingent valuation surveys?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 525-536, February.
    2. Onwujekwe, Obinna & Nwagbo, Douglas, 2002. "Investigating starting-point bias: a survey of willingness to pay for insecticide-treated nets," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 55(12), pages 2121-2130, December.
    3. 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.
    4. De Allegri, Manuela & Sanon, Mamadou & Bridges, John & Sauerborn, Rainer, 2006. "Understanding consumers' preferences and decision to enrol in community-based health insurance in rural West Africa," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 58-71, March.
    5. Shinji Takemura & Takashi Ohida & Tomofumi Sone & Takashi Fukuda & Yukie Takemura, 2005. "Influences of the absence of random assignment of bids on estimating willingness to pay using a discrete-choice question," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 209-213.
    6. 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.
    7. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    8. Phillips, Kathryn A. & Homan, Rick K. & Luft, Harold S. & Hiatt, Patricia H. & Olson, Kent R. & Kearney, Thomas E. & Heard, Stuart E., 1997. "Willingness to pay for poison control centers," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 343-357, June.
    9. Frew, Emma J. & Wolstenholme, Jane L. & Whynes, David K., 2004. "Comparing willingness-to-pay: bidding game format versus open-ended and payment scale formats," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 289-298, June.
    10. Watson, Verity & Ryan, Mandy, 2007. "Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 463-482, May.
    11. M. R. Bhatia, 2005. "From evidence to calibration for starting point bias: willingness to pay for treated mosquito nets in Gujarat, India," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(1), pages 1-7.
    12. David K. Whynes & Jane L. Wolstenholme & Emma Frew, 2004. "Evidence of range bias in contingent valuation payment scales," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(2), pages 183-190.
    13. Dong, Hengjin & Mugisha, Frederick & Gbangou, Adjima & Kouyate, Bocar & Sauerborn, Rainer, 2004. "The feasibility of community-based health insurance in Burkina Faso," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 45-53, July.
    14. Desvousges, William H. & Smith, V. Kerry & Fisher, Ann, 1987. "Option price estimates for water quality improvements: A contingent valuation study for the monongahela river," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 248-267, September.
    15. John Whitehead & Suzanne Finney, 2003. "Willingness to Pay for Submerged Maritime Cultural Resources," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 231-240, November.
    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:wly:hlthec:v:19:y:2010:i:1:p:75-87. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing)

    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.