IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ulp/sbbeta/2003-07.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A model of the anchoring effect in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up

Author

Listed:
  • Sandra Lechner
  • Anne Rozan
  • François Laisney

Abstract

This paper focuses on modelling and estimating the starting point bias in closed-ended follow-up questions, where several bids are presented successively, depending on previous answers. Although the contingent valuation literature took off in the last decade, there is only one study modelling the starting point bias. We propose a new modelling of this anchoring effect based on the assumption the first proposed bid has a direct influence on the individual's willingness-to-pay, i.e respondents modify their willingness-to-pay when presented with the first bid just before they answer the first question. Monte Carlo results support the specification of our model. An application is provided based on data from a contingent valuation study conducted concerning air quality in Strasbourg.

Suggested Citation

  • Sandra Lechner & Anne Rozan & François Laisney, 2003. "A model of the anchoring effect in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up," Working Papers of BETA 2003-07, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    • Handle: RePEc:ulp:sbbeta:2003-07
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://beta.u-strasbg.fr/WP/2003/2003-07.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kanninen Barbara J., 1995. "Bias in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 114-125, January.
    2. 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.
    3. Richard O‘Conor & Magnus Johannesson & Per-Olov Johansson, 1999. "Stated Preferences, Real Behaviour and Anchoring: Some Empirical Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(2), pages 235-248, March.
    4. 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.
    5. Cameron Trudy Ann & Quiggin John, 1994. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up Questionnaire," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 218-234, November.
    6. Cameron, Trudy Ann & James, Michelle D, 1987. "Efficient Estimation Methods for "Closed-ended' Contingent Valuation Surveys," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 69(2), pages 269-276, May.
    7. Michael Hanemann & John Loomis & Barbara Kanninen, 1991. "Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1255-1263.
    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. Estelle Dhont-Peltrault & Etienne Pfister, 2007. "R&D cooperation versus R&D subcontracting: empirical evidence from French survey data," Working Papers of BETA 2007-17, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    2. Giovanni Dosi & Patrick Llerena & Mauro Sylos Labini, 2005. "Science-Technology-Industry Links and the ”European Paradox”: Some Notes on the Dynamics of Scientific and Technological Research in Europe," LEM Papers Series 2005/02, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    3. Nicolas Carayol & Pascale Roux, 2006. "A strategic model of complex networks formation," Working Papers of BETA 2006-02, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    4. Marcella Veronesi & Anna Alberini & Joseph Cooper, 2011. "Implications of Bid Design and Willingness-To-Pay Distribution for Starting Point Bias in Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(2), pages 199-215, June.
    5. Rachel Levy & Paul Muller, 2006. "Do academic laboratories correspond to scientific communities? Evidence from a large European university," Working Papers of BETA 2006-15, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    6. Sofia Pessoa e Costa & Stéphane Robin, 2007. "The Impact Of Training Programmes On Wages In France: An Evaluation Of The “Qualifying Contract” Using Propensity Scores," Working Papers of BETA 2007-18, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    7. Murat Yildizoglu & Nicolas Carayol & Pascale Roux, 2005. "Coordination Failures in Network Formation," Post-Print hal-00160385, HAL.
    8. Gisèle Umbhauer, 2007. "De l’amiante au chrysotile, un glissement stratégique dans la désinformation," Working Papers of BETA 2007-15, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    9. Jalal EL OUARDIGHI & Rabija SOMUN-KAPETANOVIC, 2006. "Convergence des contributions aux inégalités de richesse dans le développement des pays européens," Working Papers of BETA 2006-19, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    10. Stéphane Betrand & Kene Boun My & Alban Verchère, 2005. "Faire émerger la coopération internationale : une approche expérimentale comparée du bilatéralisme et du multilatéralisme," Working Papers of BETA 2005-13, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    11. Tapas K. Mishra, 2006. "A Further Look into the Demography-based GDP Forecasting Method," Working Papers of BETA 2006-17, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    12. Li Qin & Eleftherios Spyromitros & Moïse Sidiropoulos, 2007. "Monetary Policy with Uncertain Central Bank Preferences for Robustness," Working Papers of BETA 2007-23, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.

    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. 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.
    2. P. Calia & E. Strazzera, 1998. "Bias and efficiency of single vs. double bound models for contingent valuation studies: a Monte Carlo Analysis," Working Paper CRENoS 199801, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    3. Corsi, Alessandro, 2012. "Willingness-to-pay in terms of price: an application to organic beef during and after the “mad cow” crisis," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 92(01), pages 25-46, October.
    4. van Soest, A.H.O. & Hurd, M., 2004. "Models for Anchoring and Acquiescence Bias in Consumption Data," Other publications TiSEM 45bba4af-d462-4b9f-a064-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    5. Hanemann, W. Michael & Kanninen, Barbara, 1996. "The Statistical Analysis Of Discrete-Response Cv Data," CUDARE Working Papers 25022, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    6. Flachaire, Emmanuel & Hollard, Guillaume, 2007. "Starting point bias and respondent uncertainty in dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 183-194, September.
    7. Pinuccia Calia & Elisabetta Strazzera, 2000. "Bias and efficiency of single versus double bound models for contingent valuation studies: a Monte Carlo analysis," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(10), pages 1329-1336.
    8. 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.
    9. Arthur van Soest & Michael Hurd, 2004. "Models for Anchoring and Acquiescence Bias in Consumption Data," NBER Working Papers 10461, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. van Soest, Arthur & Hurd, Michael, 2008. "A Test for Anchoring and Yea-Saying in Experimental Consumption Data," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 103, pages 126-136, March.
    11. 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.
    12. Satoshi Yamazaki & Steven Rust & Sarah Jennings & Jeremy Lyle & Sven Frijlink, 2013. "Valuing recreational fishing in Tasmania and assessment of response bias in contingent valuation," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 57(2), pages 193-213, April.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Deutschmann, Joshua W. & Postepska, Agnieszka & Sarr, Leopold, 2021. "Measuring willingness to pay for reliable electricity: Evidence from Senegal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    16. Gebretsadik, Kidanemariam Abreha & Romstad, Eirik, 2020. "Climate and farmers’ willingness to pay for improved irrigation water supply," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 20(C).
    17. Hermann Donfouet & P. Jeanty & P.-A. Mahieu, 2014. "Dealing with internal inconsistency in double-bounded dichotomous choice: an application to community-based health insurance," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 317-328, February.
    18. John C. Whitehead, 2000. "“Anchoring and Shift in Multiple Bound Contingent Valuation,”," Working Papers 0004, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    19. Genius, Margarita & Strazzera, Elisabetta, 2011. "Can unbiased be tighter? Assessment of methods to reduce the bias-variance trade-off in WTP estimation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 293-314, January.
    20. Marcella Veronesi & Anna Alberini & Joseph Cooper, 2011. "Implications of Bid Design and Willingness-To-Pay Distribution for Starting Point Bias in Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(2), pages 199-215, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Contingent valuation; willingness-to-pay; binary-choice; anchoring effect.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C15 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Statistical Simulation Methods: General
    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • D1 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior
    • Q0 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General

    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:ulp:sbbeta:2003-07. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/bestrfr.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.