IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/91549.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An empirical examination of reducing status quo bias in heterogeneous populations: evidence from the South African water sector

Author

Listed:
  • Murwirapachena, Genius
  • Dikgang, Johane

Abstract

Choice experiments typically include a status quo option, which often describes the current scenario. This is to secure the validity and applicability of choice experiments. People have a propensity to choose what they are familiar with, despite being presented with alternatives that seem better (i.e. the ‘status quo effect’). Various experiments have reliably demonstrated this effect. The tendency to prefer the current scenario disproportionally does not mimic real-life preferences; therefore, status quo bias is undesirable. In a split sample framework, we test for the effects of reducing status quo bias by considering a heterogeneous sample. We use generalised mixed logit models to carry out the tests. The tests reveal that presenting each split sample with a partially relevant status quo significantly reduces the status quo bias problem.

Suggested Citation

  • Murwirapachena, Genius & Dikgang, Johane, 2018. "An empirical examination of reducing status quo bias in heterogeneous populations: evidence from the South African water sector," MPRA Paper 91549, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:91549
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/91549/1/MPRA_paper_91549.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2009. "Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 515-528.
    2. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Moon, Amanda, 2009. "Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-17.
    3. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2012. "Do status quo choices reflect preferences? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in the context of water utilities' investment planning," CEPE Working paper series 12-87, CEPE Center for Energy Policy and Economics, ETH Zurich.
    4. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    5. Danny Campbell & W. Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Incorporating Discontinuous Preferences into the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(3), pages 401-417, November.
    6. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    7. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Chorus, Caspar G., 2017. "Detecting dominance in stated choice data and accounting for dominance-based scale differences in logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 83-104.
    8. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    9. Jing Zhang & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2011. "Unraveling the Choice Format Effect: A Context-Dependent Random Utility Model," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(4), pages 730-743.
    10. Dan Marsh & Lena Mkwara & Riccardo Scarpa, 2011. "Do Respondents’ Perceptions of the Status Quo Matter in Non-Market Valuation with Choice Experiments? An Application to New Zealand Freshwater Streams," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 3(9), pages 1-23, September.
    11. Jean‐Pierre Dubé & Günter J. Hitsch & Peter E. Rossi, 2010. "State dependence and alternative explanations for consumer inertia," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 41(3), pages 417-445, September.
    12. David Hensher & Nina Shore & Kenneth Train, 2005. "Households’ Willingness to Pay for Water Service Attributes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(4), pages 509-531, December.
    13. Ada Jansen & Carl‐erik Schulz, 2006. "Water Demand And The Urban Poor: A Study Of The Factors Influencing Water Consumption Among Households In Cape Town, South Africa," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 74(3), pages 593-609, September.
    14. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923.
    15. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    16. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
    17. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Jude, Simon, 2009. "Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 106-118, July.
    18. Maltz, Amnon & Romagnoli, Giorgia, 2015. "The Effect of Ambiguity on Status Quo Bias: An Experimental Study," Working Papers WP2015/5, University of Haifa, Department of Economics.
    19. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    20. Riccardo Scarpa & Kenneth G. Willis & Melinda Acutt, 2007. "Valuing externalities from water supply: Status quo, choice complexity and individual random effects in panel kernel logit analysis of choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(4), pages 449-466.
    21. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    22. 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.
    23. Jaqueline Ann Goldin, 2010. "Water Policy in South Africa: Trust and Knowledge as Obstacles to Reform," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 42(2), pages 195-212, June.
    24. Stephane Hess & John Rose, 2009. "Should Reference Alternatives in Pivot Design SC Surveys be Treated Differently?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(3), pages 297-317, March.
    25. Johane Dikgang & Edwin Muchapondwa, 2014. "The economic valuation of nature-based tourism in the South African Kgalagadi area and implications for the Khomani San 'bushmen' community," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 306-322, November.
    26. Oehlmann, Malte & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Mariel, Petr & Weller, Priska, 2017. "Uncovering context-induced status quo effects in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 59-73.
    27. Ritov, Ilana & Baron, Jonathan, 1992. "Status-Quo and Omission Biases," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 49-61, February.
    28. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2015. "Using discrete choice experiments to regulate the provision of water services: do status quo choices reflect preferences?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 300-324, June.
    29. Roy Brouwer & Fumbi Job & Bianca Kroon & Richard Johnston, 2015. "Comparing Willingness to Pay for Improved Drinking-Water Quality Using Stated Preference Methods in Rural and Urban Kenya," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 81-94, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shi, Wei & Halstead, John M. & Huang, Ju-Chin, 2017. "Market Experience Matters: Status Quo Effect in the Economic Valuation of Consumer Preferences for Local Produce," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258290, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2015. "Using discrete choice experiments to regulate the provision of water services: do status quo choices reflect preferences?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 300-324, June.
    3. Oehlmann, Malte & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Mariel, Petr & Weller, Priska, 2017. "Uncovering context-induced status quo effects in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 59-73.
    4. Oehlmann, Malte & Weller, Priska & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2014. "Complexity-induced Status Quo Effects in Discrete Choice Experiments for Environmental Valutation," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100616, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    5. Thiene, Mara & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & De Salvo, Maria, 2012. "Scale and taste heterogeneity for forest biodiversity: Models of serial nonparticipation and their effects," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 355-369.
    6. Tobias Holmsgaard Larsen & Thomas Lundhede & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2020. "Assessing the value of surface water and groundwater quality improvements when time lags and outcome uncertainty exist: Results from a choice experiment survey across four different countries," IFRO Working Paper 2020/12, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    7. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    8. Wan Norhidayah W Mohamad & Ken Willis & Neil Powe, 2019. "The Status Quo In Discrete Choice Experiments: Is It Relevant?," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 65(02), pages 507-532, March.
    9. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2012. "Do status quo choices reflect preferences? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in the context of water utilities' investment planning," CEPE Working paper series 12-87, CEPE Center for Energy Policy and Economics, ETH Zurich.
    10. Barr, Rhona F. & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Investigating fishers' preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 91-103.
    11. Dale Whittington & Vic Adamowicz, 2010. "The Use of Hypothetical Baselines in Stated Preference Surveys," EEPSEA Special and Technical Paper sp201009s1, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Sep 2010.
    12. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    13. Ryffel, Andrea Nathalie & Rid, Wolfgang & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne, 2014. "Land use trade-offs for flood protection: A choice experiment with visualizations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 111-123.
    14. Barreiro-Hurle, Jesus & Espinosa-Goded, Maria & Martinez-Paz, Jose Miguel & Perni, Angel, 2018. "Choosing not to choose: A meta-analysis of status quo effects in environmental valuations using choice experiments," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 18(01), June.
    15. Weng, Weizhe & Morrison, Mark & Boyle, Kevin J. & Boxall, Peter C., 2017. "The effect of the number of alternatives in choice experiment questions," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 259179, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Ajayi, V. & Reiner, D., 2020. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Reducing the Environmental Footprint of Green Plastics," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 20110, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    17. Weng, Weizhe & Morrison, Mark & Boyle, Kevin & Boxall, Peter, 2017. "The effect of the number of alternatives in a choice experiment with an application to the Macquarie Marshes, AU," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252836, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    18. Marit Kragt & Jeffrey Bennett, 2012. "Attribute Framing in Choice Experiments: How Do Attribute Level Descriptions Affect Value Estimates?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 43-59, January.
    19. Dan Marsh & Lena Mkwara & Riccardo Scarpa, 2011. "Do Respondents’ Perceptions of the Status Quo Matter in Non-Market Valuation with Choice Experiments? An Application to New Zealand Freshwater Streams," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 3(9), pages 1-23, September.
    20. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mourato, Susana, 2016. "Modeling individual preferences for energy sources: The case of IV generation nuclear energy in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 37-58.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    choice experiments; heterogeneous; generalised mixed logit; status quo bias.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods
    • Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    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:pra:mprapa:91549. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    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.