On Inferring Demand for Health Care in the Presence of Anchoring, Acquiescence, and Selection Biases
In the contingent valuation literature, both anchoring and acquiescence biases pose problems when using an iterative bidding game to infer willingness to pay. Anchoring bias occurs when the willingness to pay estimate is sensitive to the initially presented starting value. Acquiescence bias occurs when survey respondents exhibit a tendency to answer 'yes' to questions, regardless of their true preferences. More generally, whenever a survey format is used and not all of those contacted participate, selection bias raises concerns about the representativeness of the sample. In this paper, we estimate students' willingness to pay for student health care at Stanford University while accounting for all of these biases. As there is no cost sharing for students, we assess willingness to pay by having a random sample of students play an online iterative bidding game. Our main results are that (1) demand for student health care is elastic by conventional standards; (2) ignoring anchoring bias would lead to a substantially biased measure of the demand elasticity; (3) there is evidence for acquiescence bias in student answers to the opening question of the iterative bidding game and failure to address this leads to the biased conclusion that demand is inelastic; and (4) standard selection correction methods indicate no bias from selective non-response and newer bounding methods support this conclusion of elastic demand.
|Date of creation:||Mar 2008|
|Date of revision:|
|Publication status:||published as Jay Bhattacharya & Adam Isen, 2009. "On Inferring Demand for Health Care in the Presence of Anchoring and Selection Biases," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, Berkeley Electronic Press, vol. 12(2).|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- van Soest, A.H.O. & Hurd, M., 2008.
"A test for anchoring and yea-saying in experimental consumption data,"
Other publications TiSEM
3f886d9b-4acf-4747-a6d3-0, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
- van Soest, Arthur & Hurd, Michael, 2008. "A Test for Anchoring and Yea-Saying in Experimental Consumption Data," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 103, pages 126-136, March.
- Arthur van Soest & Michael Hurd, 2004. "A Test for Anchoring and Yea-Saying in Experimental Consumption Data," NBER Working Papers 10462, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- van Soest, A.H.O. & Hurd, M., 2004. "A Test for Anchoring and Yea-Saying in Experimental Consumption Data," Discussion Paper 2004-27, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- Arthur van Soest & Michael Hurd, 2003. "A Test for Anchoring and Yea-Saying in Experimental Consumption Data," Working Papers 147, RAND Corporation Publications Department.
- Philipson, Tomas, 2001. "Data Markets, Missing Data, and Incentive Pay," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(4), pages 1099-1111, July.
- 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.
- Charles F. Manski & John V. Pepper, 1998.
"Monotone Instrumental Variables: With an Application to the Returns to Schooling,"
Virginia Economics Online Papers
308, University of Virginia, Department of Economics.
- Charles F. Manski & John V. Pepper, 2000. "Monotone Instrumental Variables, with an Application to the Returns to Schooling," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(4), pages 997-1012, July.
- Charles F. Manski & John V. Pepper, 1998. "Monotone Instrumental Variables with an Application to the Returns to Schooling," NBER Technical Working Papers 0224, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Ryan, Mandy & Scott, David A. & Donaldson, Cam, 2004. "Valuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 237-258, March.
- Manski, Charles F, 1990.
"Nonparametric Bounds on Treatment Effects,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 319-23, May.
- Jay Bhattacharya & Azeem Shaikh & Edward Vytlacil, 2005.
"Treatment Effect Bounds: An Application to Swan-Ganz Catheterization,"
NBER Working Papers
11263, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Bhattacharya, Jay & Shaikh, Azeem M. & Vytlacil, Edward, 2012. "Treatment effect bounds: An application to Swan–Ganz catheterization," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 168(2), pages 223-243.
- 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.
- Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Staff General Research Papers 1501, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- Heckman, James J, 1979.
"Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error,"
Econometric Society, vol. 47(1), pages 153-61, January.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:13865. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.