IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Protest Attitudes and Stated Preferences: Evidence on Scale Usage Heterogeneity

  • Maria A. Cunha-e-Sá
  • Luis C. Nunes
  • Vladimir Otrachshenko

We contribute to the stated preference literature by addressing scale usage heterogeneity regarding how individuals answer attitudinal questions capturing lack of trust in institutions and fairness issues. Using a latent class model, we conduct a contingent valuation study to elicit the willingness-to-pay to preserve a recreational site. We find evidence that respondents within the same class, that is, with similar preferences and attitudes, interpret the Likert scale differently when answering the attitudinal questions. We identify different patterns of scale usage heterogeneity within and across classes and associate them with individual characteristics. Our approach contributes to better a understanding of individual behavior in the presence of protest attitudes. JEL codes: C35, Q51

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: http://fesrvsd.fe.unl.pt/WPFEUNL/WP2012/Wp569.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Faculdade de Economia in its series FEUNL Working Paper Series with number wp569.

as
in new window

Length: 26 pages
Date of creation: 2012
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:unl:unlfep:wp569
Contact details of provider: Postal: Campus de Campolide, 1099-032 Lisboa
Phone: (351) 21 3801638
Fax: (351) 21 3870933
Web page: http://www.fe.unl.pt
Email:


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. Polome, Philippe, 2003. "Experimental evidence on deliberate misrepresentation in referendum contingent valuation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 387-401, November.
  2. Doreen Wing Han Au & Thomas F. Crossley & Martin Schellhorn, 2005. "The Effect of Health Changes and Long-term Health on the Work Activity of Older Canadians," Quantitative Studies in Economics and Population Research Reports 397, McMaster University.
  3. Blamey, Russell K., 1998. "Decisiveness, attitude expression and symbolic responses in contingent valuation surveys," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 577-601, March.
  4. Carson, Richard T & Groves, Theodore, 2010. "Incentive and Information Properties of Preference Questions," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt88d8644g, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
  5. Kristin Jakobsson & Andrew Dragun, 2001. "The Worth of a Possum: Valuing Species with the Contingent Valuation Method," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(3), pages 211-227, July.
  6. Botzen, W.J.W. & van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., 2012. "Risk attitudes to low-probability climate change risks: WTP for flood insurance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 151-166.
  7. John Bound, 1991. "Self-Reported Versus Objective Measures of Health in Retirement Models," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 26(1), pages 106-138.
  8. Bill Provencher & Kenneth A. Baerenklau & Richard C. Bishop, 2002. "A Finite Mixture Logit Model of Recreational Angling with Serially Correlated Random Utility," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(4), pages 1066-1075.
  9. Richard Carson & Robert Mitchell & Michael Hanemann & Raymond Kopp & Stanley Presser & Paul Ruud, 2003. "Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive Use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 257-286, July.
  10. Martijn G. De Jong & Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp & Jean-Paul Fox, 2007. "Relaxing Measurement Invariance in Cross-National Consumer Research Using a Hierarchical IRT Model," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(2), pages 260-278, 06.
  11. Maria Cunha-e-Sá & Lívia Madureira & Luis Nunes & Vladimir Otrachshenko, 2012. "Protesting and Justifying: A Latent Class Model for Contingent Valuation with Attitudinal Data," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 52(4), pages 531-548, August.
  12. Brown, Kelly M. & Taylor, Laura O., 2000. "Do as you say, say as you do: evidence on gender differences in actual and stated contributions to public goods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 127-139, September.
  13. Rossi P. E & Gilula Z. & Allenby G. M, 2001. "Overcoming Scale Usage Heterogeneity: A Bayesian Hierarchical Approach," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 96, pages 20-31, March.
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:unl:unlfep:wp569. 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: (Sean Story)

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.