IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/apl/wpaper/02-15.html

Does Don't Know Mean No? Analysis of 'Don't Know Responses in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions

Author

Listed:
  • Peter A. Groothuis
  • John C. Whitehead

Abstract

The 'don't know' response option in contingent valuation dichotomous choice questions is analysed using data from both willingness to pay and willingness to accept studies. An empirical analysis is conducted to determine whether respondents are stating a response similar to yes or no responses or a middle response. It is found that don't know responses are similar to no responses in the willingness to pay study. In the willingness to accept study, it is found that the 'don't know' responses are similar to a middle response. It is further suggested that researchers consider calculating ambivalence bounds when a don't know response is a middle response.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Peter A. Groothuis & John C. Whitehead, 2002. "Does Don't Know Mean No? Analysis of 'Don't Know Responses in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions," Working Papers 02-15, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    • Handle: RePEc:apl:wpaper:02-15
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    More about this item

    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:apl:wpaper:02-15. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: O. Ashton Morgan (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deappus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.