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

Scale sensitivity and question order in the contingent valuation method

  • Andersson, Henrik

    (Department of Business, Economics, Statistics and Informatics)

  • Svensson, Mikael

    ()

    (Department of Business, Economics, Statistics and Informatics)

This study examines the effect on respondents' willingness to pay to reduce mortality risk by the order of the question in a stated preference study. Using answers from an experiment conducted on a Swedish sample where respondents’ cognitive ability was measured and where they participate in a contingent valuation survey it is found that scale sensitivity is the strongest when respondents are asked about a smaller risk reduction first (“Bottom-up” approach). This contradicts some previous evidence in the literature. It is also found that the respondents’ cognitive ability is correlated with their answers being line with theoretical predictions. The latter being important for the validity of the answers. Hence, the results of this paper suggest that scale sensitivity is related to the order of the questions and to respondents’ cognitive ability.

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: https://www.oru.se/globalassets/oru-sv/institutioner/hh/workingpapers/workingpapers2010/wp-2-2010.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Örebro University, School of Business in its series Working Papers with number 2010:2.

as
in new window

Length: 29 pages
Date of creation: 11 Feb 2010
Handle: RePEc:hhs:oruesi:2010_002
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Örebro University School of Business, SE - 701 82 ÖREBRO, Sweden

Phone: 019-30 30 00
Fax: 019-33 25 46
Web page: http://www.oru.se/Institutioner/Handelshogskolan-vid-Orebro-universitet/

More information through EDIRC

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. Mark Yuying An, 1996. "Semiparametric Estimation of Willingness to Pay Distributions," Econometrics 9611001, EconWPA.
  2. Green, Donald & Jacowitz, Karen E. & Kahneman, Daniel & McFadden, Daniel, 1998. "Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 85-116, June.
  3. Blumenschein, Karen & Johannesson, Magnus & Yokoyama, Krista K. & Freeman, Patricia R., 2001. "Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 441-457, May.
  4. Milton C. Weinstein & Donald S. Shepard & Joseph S. Pliskin, 1980. "The Economic Value of Changing Mortality Probabilities: A Decision-Theoretic Approach," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 94(2), pages 373-396.
  5. 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.
  6. Corso, Phaedra S & Hammitt, James K & Graham, John D, 2001. "Valuing Mortality-Risk Reduction: Using Visual Aids to Improve the Validity of Contingent Valuation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 165-84, September.
  7. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
  8. Pratt, John W & Zeckhauser, Richard J, 1996. "Willingness to Pay and the Distribution of Risk and Wealth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(4), pages 747-763, August.
  9. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
  10. Andersson, Henrik & Svensson, Mikael, 2007. "Cognitive Ability and Scale Bias in the Contingent Valuation Method," Working Papers 2007:1, Swedish National Road & Transport Research Institute (VTI).
  11. Daniel Kahneman, 2003. "Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1449-1475, December.
  12. Smith, V. Kerry, 1992. "Arbitrary values, good causes, and premature verdicts," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 71-89, January.
  13. Bateman, Ian J. & Cole, Matthew & Cooper, Philip & Georgiou, Stavros & Hadley, David & Poe, Gregory L., 2004. "On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 71-93, January.
  14. Heberlein, Thomas A. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Bishop, Richard C. & Schaeffer, Nora Cate, 2005. "Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 1-22, July.
  15. Kahneman, Daniel & Ritov, Ilana & Schkade, David A, 1999. "Economic Preferences or Attitude Expressions?: An Analysis of Dollar Responses to Public Issues," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 203-35, December.
  16. Alberini, Anna & Cropper, Maureen & Krupnick, Alan & Simon, N.B.Nathalie B., 2004. "Does the value of a statistical life vary with age and health status? Evidence from the US and Canada," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 769-792, July.
  17. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
  18. Boyle Kevin J. & Welsh Michael P. & Bishop Richard C., 1993. "The Role of Question Order and Respondent Experience in Contingent-Valuation Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages S80-S99, July.
  19. Rosen, Sherwin, 1988. "The Value of Changes in Life Expectancy," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 285-304, September.
  20. Hammitt, James K & Graham, John D, 1999. "Willingness to Pay for Health Protection: Inadequate Sensitivity to Probability?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 33-62, April.
  21. Carson Richard T. & Mitchell Robert Cameron, 1995. "Sequencing and Nesting in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 155-173, March.
  22. An, Mark Y. & Roberto Ayala, 1995. "A Mixture Model of Willingness to Pay Distributions," Working Papers 95-21, Duke University, Department of Economics.
  23. Karen Blumenschein & GlennC. Blomquist & Magnus Johannesson & Nancy Horn & Patricia Freeman, 2008. "Eliciting Willingness to Pay Without Bias: Evidence from a Field Experiment," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 114-137, 01.
  24. Persson, Ulf & Norinder, Anna & Hjalte, Krister & Gralén, Katarina, 2001. "The Value of a Statistical Life in Transport: Findings from a New Contingent Valuation Study in Sweden," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 121-34, September.
  25. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
  26. Carlsson, Fredrik & Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Martinsson, Peter, 2002. "Is Transport Safety More Valuable in the Air?," Working Papers in Economics 84, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
  27. Powe, N. A. & Bateman, I. J., 2003. "Ordering effects in nested 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' contingent valuation designs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 255-270, 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:hhs:oruesi:2010_002. 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: ()

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.