IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/een/eenhrr/0810.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Designing Choice Experiments to Test for Anchoring and Framing Effects

Author

Listed:
  • Marit Kragt

    (Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University, Australia)

  • Jeff Bennett

    (Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University, Australia)

Abstract

Choice experiments (CE) are increasingly used as a stated preference technique to value changes in non-market goods. Respondents to a CE survey are asked to make repeated choices between alternatives. Each alternative is described by a number of attributes – the attributes levels vary across alternatives and choice sets. A monetary attribute is typically included so that marginal values for changes in the non-market attributes presented can be estimated. The monetary attribute has central importance. However, there has been limited research on the impacts on respondents’ choices of changing the (range in) levels of the monetary attribute presented in CE surveys. This is known as the ‘anchoring’ effect. The ‘framing’ of non-market attributes may also affect value estimates. Attribute framing refers to the context in which the attributes are presented to respondents in a CE survey. The challenge for CE practitioners is to identify how particular attribute frames may influence respondents’ choices. This research report provides a review of anchoring and framing effects in CEs. A CE questionnaire is described to incorporate tests for anchoring and framing effects. Ten hypotheses are developed about the impacts of various attribute ‘anchors’ and ‘frames’ on respondents’ choices and subsequent values estimated.

Suggested Citation

  • Marit Kragt & Jeff Bennett, 2008. "Designing Choice Experiments to Test for Anchoring and Framing Effects," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 0810, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    • Handle: RePEc:een:eenhrr:0810
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://crawford.anu.edu.au/research_units/eerh/pdf/EERH_RR10.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. van Bueren, Martin & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2004. "Towards the development of a transferable set of value estimates for environmental attributes," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(1), pages 1-32.
    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. Marit E Kragt & Jeff Bennett, 2009. "Using Choice Experiments to value River and Estuary Health in Tasmania with Individual Preference Heterogeneity," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 0916, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University, revised Sep 2009.
    2. Gillespie, Robert & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2010. "Non Use Economic Values of Marine Protected Areas in the South-West Marine Region," Research Reports 107582, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    3. Robert Gillespie & Jeff Bennett, 2013. "Willingness to pay for kerbside recycling in Brisbane, Australia," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(3), pages 362-377, April.
    4. Robert Gillespie & Jeff Bennett, 2011. "Non Use Economic Values of Marine Protected Areas in the South-West Marine Area," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 10103, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    5. Gillespie, Robert & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2011. "Non Use Economic Values of Marine Protected Areas in the South-West Marine Area," Research Reports 107852, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    6. Norton, D. & Hynes, S & Doherty, E & Buckley, C & Campbell, D & Stithou, M, 2012. "Using Benefit Transfer Techniques to Estimate the Value of achieving ’Good Ecological’ Status in Irish Water Bodies," Research Reports 210707, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.

    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. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2010. "Do values for protecting iconic assets vary across populations? A Great Barrier Reef case study," Research Reports 95054, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    2. Rocío del Pilar Moreno-Sánchez & Jorge H. Maldonado & Camilo Andrés Gutiérrez & Melissa Rubio, 2013. "Valoración de Áreas Marinas Protegidas desde la perspectiva de los usuarios de recursos: conciliando enfoques cuantitativos individuales con enfoques cualitativos colectivos," Documentos CEDE 11936, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    3. Concu, Giovanni B., 2007. "Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(2), pages 1-20.
    4. Adam Finn & Stuart McFadyen & Colin Hoskins, 2003. "Valuing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 177-192, November.
    5. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2008. "Testing for differences in benefit transfer values between state and regional frameworks," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(2), pages 1-20.
    6. John Rolfe & Jill Windle, 2010. "Assessing national values to protect the health of the Great Barrier Reef," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1072, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    7. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Le, Hoa Thu & Nguyen, Hang Dieu & Ngo, Mai Thanh & Nguyen, Hong Quang, 2021. "Examining ordering effects and strategic behaviour in a discrete choice experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 394-413.
    8. Asrat, Sinafikeh & Yesuf, Mahmud & Carlsson, Fredrik & Wale, Edilegnaw, 2009. "Farmers’ Preferences for Crop Variety Traits: Lessons for On-Farm Conservation and Technology Adoption," RFF Working Paper Series dp-09-15-efd, Resources for the Future.
    9. John Rolfe & Jill Windle, 2010. "Do values for protecting iconic assets vary across populations? A Great Barrier Reef case study," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1065, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    10. Carlsson, Fredrik & Kataria, Mitesh & Lampi, Elina & Löfgren, Åsa & Sterner, Thomas, 2011. "Is fairness blind?--The effect of framing on preferences for effort-sharing rules," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1529-1535, June.
    11. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John & Brouwer, Roy, 2009. "Public values for improved water security for domestic and environmental use," Research Reports 94818, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    12. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria & Elina Lampi, 2011. "Do EPA Administrators Recommend Environmental Policies That Citizens Want?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(1), pages 60-74.
    13. Bergstrom, John C. & Taylor, Laura O., 2006. "Using meta-analysis for benefits transfer: Theory and practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 351-360, December.
    14. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria, 2008. "Assessing Management Options for Weed Control with Demanders and Non-Demanders in a Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(3), pages 517-528.
    15. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2013. "The limitations of applying benefit transfer to assess the value of ecosystem services in a “generic” peri-urban, coastal town in Australia," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152183, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    16. Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr & Fernández-Macho, Javier, 2009. "The influence of cultural identity on the WTP to protect natural resources: Some empirical evidence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2372-2381, June.
    17. Johnston, Robert J. & Ramachandran, Mahesh & Schultz, Eric T. & Segerson, Kathleen & Besedin, Elena Y., 2011. "Characterizing Spatial Pattern in Ecosystem Service Values when Distance Decay Doesn’t Apply: Choice Experiments and Local Indicators of Spatial Association," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103374, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Eggert, Håkan & Kataria, Mitesh & Lampi, Elina, 2018. "Difference in Preferences or Multiple Preference Orderings? Comparing Choices of Environmental Bureaucrats, Recreational Anglers, and the Public," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 131-141.
    19. Fredrik Carlsson & Dinky Daruvala & Henrik Jaldell, 2010. "Value of Statistical Life and Cause of Accident: A Choice Experiment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(6), pages 975-986, June.
    20. Neville D Crossman & Jeffrey D Connor & Brett A Bryan & David A Summers & John Ginnivan, 2009. "Reconfiguring an Irrigation Landscape to Improve Provision of Ecosystem Services," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2009-07, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.

    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:een:eenhrr:0810. 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: CAP Web Team (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/asanuau.html .

    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.