IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v15y2006i10p1077-1089.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Empirical implications of response acquiescence in discrete‐choice contingent valuation

Author

Listed:
  • Raymond Y. T. Yeung
  • Richard D. Smith
  • Lai‐Ming Ho
  • Janice M. Johnston
  • Gabriel M. Leung

Abstract

The use of discrete‐choice contingent valuation (CV) to elicit individuals' preference, expressed as maximum willingness‐to‐pay (WTP), although primarily developed in environmental economics, has been popular in the economic evaluation of health and healthcare. However, a concern with this method is the potential for ‘over‐estimating’ WTP values due to the presence of response acquiescence, or ‘yea‐saying’ bias. Based on a CV survey conducted to estimate physicians' valuation of clinic computerization, the extent of such bias was estimated from a within‐sample open‐ended valuation question following the respondents' discrete choice response. Analysis of this data suggests that not only was response acquiescence an issue, but also that the parametric estimation of mean and median WTP, the most common approach to estimating WTP from discrete‐choice data, would potentially magnify such bias (to various degrees depending on the distributional assumptions applied). The possible extent of CV design versus analysis in discrete‐choice methods therefore warrants further exploration. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Raymond Y. T. Yeung & Richard D. Smith & Lai‐Ming Ho & Janice M. Johnston & Gabriel M. Leung, 2006. "Empirical implications of response acquiescence in discrete‐choice contingent valuation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(10), pages 1077-1089, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:15:y:2006:i:10:p:1077-1089
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.1107
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1107
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.1107?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cooper, Joseph C., 2002. "Flexible Functional Form Estimation of Willingness to Pay Using Dichotomous Choice Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 267-279, March.
    2. Jones-Lee, M W, 1990. "The Value of Transport Safety," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 6(2), pages 39-60, Summer.
    3. Torbjørn Moum, 1988. "Yea-saying and mood-of-the-day effects in self-reported quality of life," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 117-139, April.
    4. Ju-Chin Huang & V. Kerry Smith, 1998. "Monte Carlo Benchmarks for Discrete Response Valuation Methods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 186-202.
    5. Tversky, Amos & Slovic, Paul & Kahneman, Daniel, 1990. "The Causes of Preference Reversal," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 204-217, March.
    6. Foreit, James R. & Foreit, Karen G. Fleischman, 2003. "The reliability and validity of willingness to pay surveys for reproductive health pricing decisions in developing countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 37-47, January.
    7. Bohara, Alok K. & McKee, Michael & Berrens, Robert P. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank & Silva, Carol L. & Brookshire, David S., 1998. "Effects of Total Cost and Group-Size Information on Willingness to Pay Responses: Open Ended vs. Dichotomous Choice," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 142-163, March.
    8. Cummings, Ronald G & Harrison, Glenn W & Rutstrom, E Elisabet, 1995. "Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 260-266, March.
    9. Richard D. Smith, 2003. "Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care:a critical assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 609-628, August.
    10. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 1987. "A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 226-247, September.
    11. Slovic, Paul & Lichtenstein, Sarah, 1983. "Preference Reversals: A Broader Perspective," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 596-605, September.
    12. Kevin J. Boyle & F. Reed Johnson & Daniel W. McCollum & William H. Desvousges & Richard W. Dunford & Sara P. Hudson, 1996. "Valuing Public Goods: Discrete versus Continuous Contingent-Valuation Responses," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(3), pages 381-396.
    13. Richard C. Ready & Jean C. Buzby & Dayuan Hu, 1996. "Differences between Continuous and Discrete Contingent Value Estimates," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(3), pages 397-411.
    14. Langford, Ian H. & Bateman, Ian J., 1996. "Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 265-267, December.
    15. Klose, Thomas, 1999. "The contingent valuation method in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 97-123, May.
    16. Alan Diener & Bernie O'Brien & Amiram Gafni, 1998. "Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(4), pages 313-326, June.
    17. Jan Abel Olsen & Richard D. Smith, 2001. "Theory versus practice: a review of ‘willingness‐to‐pay’ in health and health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(1), pages 39-52, January.
    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. Marie-Odile Carrère & Nathalie Havet & Magali Morelle & Raphaël Remonnay, 2008. "Analyzing the determinants of willingness-to-pay values for testing the validity of the contingent valuation method. Application to home care compared to hospital care," Post-Print halshs-00303725, HAL.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. M. Trapero‐Bertran & H. Mistry & J. Shen & J. Fox‐Rushby, 2013. "A Systematic Review And Meta‐Analysis Of Willingness‐To‐Pay Values: The Case Of Malaria Control Interventions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 428-450, April.
    5. Denise Bijlenga & Gouke J. Bonsel & Erwin Birnie, 2011. "Eliciting willingness to pay in obstetrics: comparing a direct and an indirect valuation method for complex health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(11), pages 1392-1406, November.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Sofía Garrido & Emilio Gutiérrez, 2019. "Time goes by so slowly (for those who wait): a field experiment in health care," Latin American Economic Review, Springer;Centro de Investigaciòn y Docencia Económica (CIDE), vol. 28(1), pages 1-17, December.
    6. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Poe, Gregory L. & Ethier, Robert G. & Schulze, William D., 2002. "Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 391-425, November.
    7. 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.
    8. Richard D. Smith, 2007. "The role of 'reference goods' in contingent valuation: should we help respondents to 'construct' their willingness to pay?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1319-1332.
    9. Laura J. Damschroder & Peter A. Ubel & Jason Riis & Dylan M. Smith, 2007. "An alternative approach for eliciting willingness-to-pay: A randomized Internet trial," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 96-106, April.
    10. Greenberg, Dan & Bakhai, Ameet & Neumann, Peter J. & Cohen, David J., 2004. "Willingness to pay for avoiding coronary restenosis and repeat revascularization: results from a contingent valuation study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 207-216, November.
    11. Whynes, David K. & Sach, Tracey H., 2007. "WTP and WTA: Do people think differently?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(5), pages 946-957, September.
    12. Zoë Philips & David K. Whynes & Mark Avis, 2006. "Testing the construct validity of willingness to pay valuations using objective information about risk and health benefit," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(2), pages 195-204, February.
    13. 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.
    14. Nathalie Havet & Magali Morelle & Raphaël Remonnay & Marie-Odile Carrere, 2012. "Cancer patients’ willingness to pay for blood transfusions at home: results from a contingent valuation study in a French cancer network," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(3), pages 289-300, June.
    15. Smith, Richard D., 2005. "Sensitivity to scale in contingent valuation: the importance of the budget constraint," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 515-529, May.
    16. Smith, Richard D. & Richardson, Jeff, 2005. "Can we estimate the `social' value of a QALY?: Four core issues to resolve," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 77-84, September.
    17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:2:y:2007:i::p:96-106 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson, 2009. "Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 389-401, April.
    19. Richard D. Smith, 2007. "The role of ‘reference goods’ in contingent valuation: should we help respondents to ‘construct’ their willingness to pay?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1319-1332, December.
    20. Richard D. Smith, 2006. "It's not just what you do, it's the way that you do it: the effect of different payment card formats and survey administration on willingness to pay for health gain," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(3), pages 281-293, March.
    21. P. Frykblom & Jason Shogren, 2000. "An Experimental Testing of Anchoring Effects in Discrete Choice Questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(3), pages 329-341, July.

    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:wly:hlthec:v:15:y:2006:i:10:p:1077-1089. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.