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

Violations of scale compatibility: results from pricing tasks and choice tasks in choice experiments

Listed author(s):
  • Merk, Christine
  • Rehdanz, Katrin
  • Schmidt, Ulrich
  • Schröder, Carsten

According to rational choice theory, preference orderings should be invariant with respect to the elicitation procedure. The contingent trade-off model (Tversky et al., 1988), however, argues that if an attribute of decision alterna-tives is also used as response mode (scale compatibility), then the attribute will be weighted more heavily. We propose a two-stage design for a systemat-ic assessment of how scale compatibility impacts willingness to pay (WTP) es-timates in choice experiments. At the first stage, a pricing task is implemented. Respondents face two alternative goods. For one good, the price is given. For the alternative good, respondents state the price (WTP) that makes them indifferent between the alternatives. In the second stage, a choice task is implemented: another group of respondents makes pairwise choices between two alternative goods with the price being one of several attributes. Our empirical findings support the contingent trade-off model, as pricing tasks yield systematically lower WTP estimates than choice tasks. While the trade-offs between the other attributes do not differ between the pricing and the choice task. Thus, in the choice task the weight shifts away from the price attribute but does not change the relative weight of the other attributes.

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.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/113023/1/VfS_2015_pid_190.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association in its series Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy with number 113023.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 2015
Handle: RePEc:zbw:vfsc15:113023
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.socialpolitik.org/
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. Clark, Jeremy & Friesen, Lana, 2008. "The causes of order effects in contingent valuation surveys: An experimental investigation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 195-206, September.
  2. Fouquet, Roger, 1998. "The United Kingdom demand for renewable electricity in a liberalised market," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 281-293, March.
  3. Eikeland, Per Ove, 1998. "Electricity market liberalisation and environmental performance: Norway and the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(12), pages 917-927, October.
  4. I J Bateman & I H Langford, 1997. "Budget-Constraint, Temporal, and Question-Ordering Effects in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 29(7), pages 1215-1228, July.
  5. Batley, S. L. & Colbourne, D. & Fleming, P. D. & Urwin, P., 2001. "Citizen versus consumer: challenges in the UK green power market," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 479-487, May.
  6. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Frykblom & Carl Lagerkvist, 2007. "Preferences with and without prices - does the price attribute affect behavior in stated preference surveys?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(2), pages 155-164, October.
  7. Carlo Andrea Bollino, 2009. "The Willingness to Pay for Renewable Energy Sources: The Case of Italy with Socio-demographic Determinants," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 2), pages 81-96.
  8. Andrew A. Goett & Kathleen Hudson & Kenneth E. Train, 2000. "Customers' Choice Among Retail Energy Suppliers: The Willingness-to-Pay for Service Attributes," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4), pages 1-28.
  9. Hensher, David A. & Shore, Nina & Train, Kenneth, 2014. "Willingness to pay for residential electricity supply quality and reliability," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 280-292.
  10. Mikolaj Czajkowski & Marek Giergiczny & William H. Greene, 2014. "Learning and Fatigue Effects Revisited: Investigating the Effects of Accounting for Unobservable Preference and Scale Heterogeneity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(2), pages 324-351.
  11. Campbell, Danny & Hensher, David A. & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2014. "Bounding WTP distributions to reflect the ‘actual’ consideration set," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 11(C), pages 4-15.
  12. Zarnikau, Jay, 2003. "Consumer demand for `green power' and energy efficiency," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(15), pages 1661-1672, December.
  13. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2013. "In search of a preferred preference elicitation method: A test of the internal consistency of choice and matching tasks," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 126-140.
  14. Roland Menges & Carsten Schroeder & Stefan Traub, 2005. "Altruism, Warm Glow and the Willingness-to-Donate for Green Electricity: An Artefactual Field Experiment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 31(4), pages 431-458, August.
  15. Morten Mørkbak & Tove Christensen & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2010. "Choke Price Bias in Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(4), pages 537-551, April.
  16. 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 80-99, July.
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:zbw:vfsc15:113023. 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: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics)

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.