IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v15y2017i3d10.1007_s40258-016-0287-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can a Circular Payment Card Format Effectively Elicit Preferences? Evidence From a Survey on a Mandatory Health Insurance Scheme in Tunisia

Author

Listed:
  • Olivier Chanel

    (Aix-Marseille University (Aix-Marseille School of Economics), CNRS & EHESS, GREQAM and IDEP)

  • Khaled Makhloufi

    (Aix-Marseille Univ, INSERM, IRD, UMR 912 (SESSTIM))

  • Mohammad Abu-Zaineh

    (Aix-Marseille University (Aix-Marseille School of Economics), CNRS & EHESS, GREQAM and IDEP
    Aix-Marseille Univ, INSERM, IRD, UMR 912 (SESSTIM))

Abstract

Background The choice of elicitation format is a crucial but tricky aspect of stated preferences surveys. It affects not only the quantity and quality of the information collected on respondents’ willingness to pay (WTP) but also the potential errors/biases that prevent their true WTP from being observed. Objectives We propose a new elicitation mechanism, the circular payment card (CPC), and show that it helps overcome the drawbacks of the standard payment card (PC) format. It uses a visual pie chart representation without start or end points: respondents spin the circular card in any direction until they find the section that best matches their true WTP. Methods We performed a contingent valuation survey regarding a mandatory health insurance scheme in Tunisia, a middle-income country. Respondents were randomly allocated into one of three subgroups and their WTP was elicited using one of three formats: open-ended (OE), standard PC and the new CPC. We compared the elicited WTP. Results We found significant differences in unconditional and conditional analyses. Our empirical results consistently indicated that the OE and standard PC formats led to significantly lower WTP than the CPC format. Conclusion Overall, our results are encouraging and suggest CPC could be an effective alternative format to elicit ‘true’ WTP.

Suggested Citation

  • Olivier Chanel & Khaled Makhloufi & Mohammad Abu-Zaineh, 2017. "Can a Circular Payment Card Format Effectively Elicit Preferences? Evidence From a Survey on a Mandatory Health Insurance Scheme in Tunisia," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 385-398, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:15:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0287-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-016-0287-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-016-0287-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-016-0287-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lunander, Anders, 1998. "Inducing Incentives to Understate and to Overstate Willingness to Pay within the Open-Ended and the Dichotomous-Choice Elicitation Formats: An Experimental Study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 88-102, January.
    2. Kanninen Barbara J., 1995. "Bias in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 114-125, January.
    3. Green, Donald & Jacowitz, Karen E. & Kahneman, Daniel & McFadden, Daniel, 1998. "Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 85-116, June.
    4. Joseph Cook & Marc Jeuland & Brian Maskery & Dale Whittington, 2012. "Giving Stated Preference Respondents “Time to Think”: Results From Four Countries," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 473-496, April.
    5. Kannika Damrongplasit & Glenn Melnick, 2015. "Funding, Coverage, and Access Under Thailand’s Universal Health Insurance Program: An Update After Ten Years," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 157-166, April.
    6. Jeff Bennett (ed.), 2011. "The International Handbook on Non-Market Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13490.
    7. Mohammad Abu-Zaineh & Habiba Romdhane & Bruno Ventelou & Jean-Paul Moatti & Arfa Chokri, 2013. "Appraising financial protection in health: the case of Tunisia," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 73-93, March.
    8. K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), 2005. "Handbook of Environmental Economics," Handbook of Environmental Economics, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 3, number 3.
    9. 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.
    10. Dubourg & Jones‐Lee & Graham Loomes, 1997. "Imprecise Preferences and Survey Design in Contingent Valuation," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 64(256), pages 681-702, November.
    11. Bateman, Ian J. & Langford, Ian H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2001. "Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 191-213, July.
    12. Joseph C. Cooper & Michael Hanemann & Giovanni Signorello, 2002. "One-and-One-Half-Bound Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(4), pages 742-750, November.
    13. Cam Donaldson & Ruth Thomas & David Torgerson, 1997. "Validity of open-ended and payment scale approaches to eliciting willingness to pay," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(1), pages 79-84.
    14. David Whynes & Emma Frew & Jane Wolstenholme, 2005. "Willingness-to-Pay and Demand Curves: A Comparison of Results Obtained Using Different Elicitation Formats," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 369-386, December.
    15. Roberta Gatti & Diego F. Angel-Urdinola & Joana Silva & Andras Bodor, 2011. "Striving for Better Jobs : The Challenge of Informality in the Middle East and North Africa Region," World Bank Publications - Reports 10857, The World Bank Group.
    16. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & François-Charles Wolff & Jason Shogren & Pascal Gastineau, 2017. "Interval bidding in a distribution elicitation format," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(51), pages 5200-5211, November.
    17. Ian J. Bateman & Brett H. Day & Diane P. Dupont & Stavros Georgiou, 2009. "Procedural Invariance Testing of the One-and-One-Half-Bound Dichotomous Choice Elicitation Method," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 91(4), pages 806-820, November.
    18. Patricia A. Champ & Richard C. Bishop, 2006. "Is Willingness to Pay for a Public Good Sensitive to the Elicitation Format?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(2), pages 162-173.
    19. Welsh, Michael P. & Poe, Gregory L., 1998. "Elicitation Effects in Contingent Valuation: Comparisons to a Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 170-185, September.
    20. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    21. David J. Bjornstad & James R. Kahn (ed.), 1996. "The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 731.
    22. Hoehn, John P & Randall, Alan, 1989. "Too Many Proposals Pass the Benefit Cost Test," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(3), pages 544-551, June.
    23. Khaled Makhloufi & Bruno Ventelou & Mohammad Abu-Zaineh, 2015. "Have health insurance reforms in Tunisia attained their intended objectives?," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 29-51, March.
    24. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Huppert, Daniel D., 1989. "OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 230-246, November.
    25. Wang, Hua & Whittington, Dale, 2005. "Measuring individuals' valuation distributions using a stochastic payment card approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 143-154, November.
    26. David K. Whynes & Jane L. Wolstenholme & Emma Frew, 2004. "Evidence of range bias in contingent valuation payment scales," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(2), pages 183-190, February.
    27. Dubourg, W R & Jones-Lee, M W & Loomes, Graham, 1994. "Imprecise Preferences and the WTP-WTA Disparity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 115-133, October.
    28. Whynes, David K. & Frew, Emma & Wolstenholme, Jane L., 2003. "A comparison of two methods for eliciting contingent valuations of colorectal cancer screening," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 555-574, July.
    29. Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July.
    30. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Pere Riera & Bengt Kriström & Runar Brännlund & Marek Giergiczny, 2014. "Exploring the determinants of uncertainty in contingent valuation surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(2), pages 186-200, July.
    31. Knut Veisten & Ståle Navrud, 2006. "Contingent valuation and actual payment for voluntarily provided passive-use values: Assessing the effect of an induced truth-telling mechanism and elicitation formats," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(7), pages 735-756.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Roberta Gatti & Diego F. Angel-Urdinola & Joana Silva & Andras Bodor, 2014. "Striving for Better Jobs : The Challenge of Informality in the Middle East and North Africa," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 19905.
    2. Champonnois, Victor & Chanel, Olivier & Makhloufi, Khaled, 2018. "Reducing the anchoring bias in multiple question CV surveys," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 1-9.
    3. Voltaire, Louinord & Donfouet, Hermann Pythagore Pierre & Pirrone, Claudio & Larzillière, Agathe, 2017. "Respondent Uncertainty and Ordering Effect on Willingness to Pay for Salt Marsh Conservation in the Brest Roadstead (France)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 47-55.

    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. Champonnois, Victor & Chanel, Olivier & Makhloufi, Khaled, 2018. "Reducing the anchoring bias in multiple question CV surveys," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 1-9.
    2. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    3. Carola Braun & Katrin Rehdanz & Ulrich Schmidt, 2016. "Validity of Willingness to Pay Measures under Preference Uncertainty," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, April.
    4. Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen & Mette Lundsby Jensen & Trine Kjaer, 2014. "Framing The Willingness‐To‐Pay Question: Impact On Response Patterns And Mean Willingness To Pay," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(5), pages 550-563, May.
    5. Frör, Oliver, 2008. "Bounded rationality in contingent valuation: Empirical evidence using cognitive psychology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 570-581, December.
    6. Christian A. Vossler & Ewa Zawojska, 2018. "Toward a better understanding of elicitation effects in stated preference studies," Working Papers 2018-01, University of Tennessee, Department of 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. Voltaire, Louinord & Donfouet, Hermann Pythagore Pierre & Pirrone, Claudio & Larzillière, Agathe, 2017. "Respondent Uncertainty and Ordering Effect on Willingness to Pay for Salt Marsh Conservation in the Brest Roadstead (France)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 47-55.
    9. Jacopo Bonan & Philippe LeMay-Boucher & Michel Tenikue, 2014. "Households' Willingness to Pay for Health Microinsurance and its Impact on Actual Take-up: Results from a Field Experiment in Senegal," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(10), pages 1445-1462, November.
    10. George Parsons & Kelley Myers, 2017. "Fat tails and truncated bids in contingent valuation: an application to an endangered shorebird species," Chapters, in: Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train (ed.), Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods, chapter 2, pages 17-42, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Damigos, D. & Tourkolias, C. & Diakoulaki, D., 2009. "Households' willingness to pay for safeguarding security of natural gas supply in electricity generation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 2008-2017, May.
    12. Gordillo, Fernando & Elsasser, Peter & Günter, Sven, 2019. "Willingness to pay for forest conservation in Ecuador: Results from a nationwide contingent valuation survey in a combined “referendum” – “Consequential open-ended” design," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 28-39.
    13. Bateman, Ian J. & Burgess, Diane & Hutchinson, W. George & Matthews, David I., 2008. "Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 127-141, March.
    14. Schwarzinger, Michaël & Carrat, Fabrice & Luchini, Stéphane, 2009. ""If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question": Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchori," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 873-884, July.
    15. Henrik Andersson & James Hammitt & Gunnar Lindberg & Kristian Sundström, 2013. "Willingness to Pay and Sensitivity to Time Framing: A Theoretical Analysis and an Application on Car Safety," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(3), pages 437-456, November.
    16. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Pappa, Valentina, 2016. "Elicitation formats and the WTA/WTP gap: A study of climate neutral foods," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 141-155.
    17. Vossler, Christian A., 2003. "Multiple bounded discrete choice contingent valuation: parametric and nonparametric welfare estimation and a comparison to the payment card," MPRA Paper 38867, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Watson, Verity & Ryan, Mandy, 2007. "Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 463-482, May.
    19. María Xosé Vázquez & Jorge E. Araña & Carmelo J. León, 2006. "Economic evaluation of health effects with preference imprecision," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 403-417, April.
    20. Mandy Ryan & Mabelle Amaya‐Amaya, 2005. "‘Threats’ to and hopes for estimating benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 609-619, June.

    More about this item

    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:spr:aphecp:v:15:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0287-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.