IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/vtiwps/2010_012.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Is stated preference certainty individual-specific? - An empirical study

Author

Listed:
  • Swärdh, Jan-Erik

    () (VTI)

Abstract

The somewhat ad-hoc method of certainty calibration, based on self-stated preference certainty follow-up questions, has been found to be a successful method of eliminating or reducing hypothetical bias in stated preference studies. But is the preference certainty really context dependent, or do some subjects tend to always state themselves as certain regardless of the context, i.e. is the preference certainty dependent on a systematic unobservable individual-specific effect? This question is empirically analyzed in this paper using data where a preference certainty question follows a hypothetical willingness to pay question, in two different contexts. Estimated bivariate probit models provide no evidence for systematic individual-specific answers to the preference certainty follow-up questions of different contexts. Since there is no support for a randomly self-stated preference certainty either, this result is deemed to increase the credibility of certainty calibration.

Suggested Citation

  • Swärdh, Jan-Erik, 2010. "Is stated preference certainty individual-specific? - An empirical study," Working Papers 2010:12, Swedish National Road & Transport Research Institute (VTI).
  • Handle: RePEc:hhs:vtiwps:2010_012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.transportportal.se/SWoPEc/analyze_pref_Swardh2.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Beck, Matthew J. & Rose, John M. & Hensher, David A., 2013. "Consistently inconsistent: The role of certainty, acceptability and scale in choice," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 81-93.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Certainty calibration; Preference certainty; Follow-up question; Hypothetical bias; Stated preferences; Bivariate ordered probit;

    JEL classification:

    • C20 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - General
    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hhs:vtiwps:2010_012. 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: (Mats Berggren). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/tevtise.html .

    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.