Reducing the anchoring bias in multiple question CV surveys

The elicitation format is a crucial aspect of Contingent Valuation (CV) surveys and can impact their reliability. This paper contributes to the extensive debate on WTP (Willingness To Pay) elicitation formats by assessing whether the Circular Payment Card (CPC) can reduce anchoring on respondents' previous answers under multiple elicitation questions. This new format 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 WTP. We used a CV survey based on two ways of reducing risks associated with flooding, each randomly presented first to half of the respondents, to test the absolute performance of CPC. We presented a second survey on two social insurance schemes for subjects currently uninsured to respondents randomly split into three subgroups. Each group's WTP was elicited using one of three formats: Open-Ended (OE), standard Payment Card (PC) and the new CPC. The two insurance schemes were always proposed in the same order, and we assessed the relative performance of CPC by comparing anchoring across respondents. Our results provide evidence that CPC is likely to reduce anchoring in multiple elicitation questions and that respondents may rely on different heuristic decisions when giving WTP in the OE and in the two PC formats.

[1]  R. Carson,et al.  15 Incentive and information properties of preference questions: commentary and extensions , 2011 .

[2]  B. Ventelou,et al.  Have health insurance reforms in Tunisia attained their intended objectives? , 2015, International Journal of Health Economics and Management.

[3]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  The role of question order and respondent experience in contingent-valuation studies. , 1993 .

[4]  Robert Cameron Mitchell,et al.  Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method , 1989 .

[5]  A. Ridder,et al.  Order bias in estimates of willingness to pay for drugs to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder , 2002, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[6]  Cliff C. J. Huang,et al.  A general model of starting point bias in double-bounded dichotomous contingent valuation surveys , 2005 .

[7]  Debopam Bhattacharya,et al.  Asymptotic inference from multi-stage samples , 2005 .

[8]  H. Hoen,et al.  Sequencing and the Adding-up Property in Contingent Valuation of Endangered Species: Are Contingent Non-Use Values Economic Values? , 2004 .

[9]  I. Bateman,et al.  Valuing risk reductions: Testing for range biases in payment card and random card sorting methods , 2007 .

[10]  H. Romdhane,et al.  Appraising financial protection in health: the case of Tunisia , 2013, International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics.

[11]  R. Carson,et al.  Sequencing and Nesting in Contingent Valuation Surveys , 1995 .

[12]  Elizabeth C. Hirschman,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[13]  Lisa R. Anderson,et al.  Are risk preferences stable? Comparing an experimental measure with a validated survey-based measure , 2008 .

[14]  Barbara Kanninen,et al.  Bias in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation , 1995 .

[15]  Marc A. Koopmanschap,et al.  With a little help from an anchor: Discussion and evidence of anchoring effects in contingent valuation , 2006 .

[16]  J. Moatti,et al.  Eliciting several willingness to pay in a single contingent valuation survey: application to health care. , 2003, Health economics.

[17]  J. Shogren,et al.  Interval bidding in a distribution elicitation format , 2017 .

[18]  Trudy Ann Cameron,et al.  OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data , 1989 .

[19]  J. Whitehead.  Incentive Incompatibility and Starting-Point Bias in Iterative Valuation Questions , 2002, Land Economics.

[20]  Marcus Selart,et al.  Structure Compatibility and Restructuring in Judgment and Choice , 1996 .

[21]  Jason F. Shogren,et al.  Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning , 1996 .

[22]  K. Boyle,et al.  Anchoring and Adjustment in Single-Bounded, Contingent-Valuation Questions , 1997 .

[23]  O. Frör.  Bounded rationality in contingent valuation: Empirical evidence using cognitive psychology , 2008 .

[24]  Gregory L. Poe,et al.  Elicitation Effects in Contingent Valuation: Comparisons to a Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Approach , 1998 .

[25]  Marc Jeuland,et al.  Giving Stated Preference Respondents “Time to Think”: Results From Four Countries , 2010 .

[26]  Emmanuel Flachaire,et al.  Starting point bias and respondent uncertainty in dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys , 2007 .

[27]  Welch Bl.  THE GENERALIZATION OF ‘STUDENT'S’ PROBLEM WHEN SEVERAL DIFFERENT POPULATION VARLANCES ARE INVOLVED , 1947 .

[28]  J. Payne,et al.  Valuation of Multiple Environmental Programs , 2000 .

[29]  Alberto Longo,et al.  Sequence Effects in the Valuation of Multiple Environmental Programs Using the Contingent Valuation Method , 2015, Land Economics.

[30]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Ordering effects in nested ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ contingent valuation designs , 2003 .

[31]  P. Shackley,et al.  The impact of information on non-health attributes on willingness to pay for multiple health care programmes. , 2004, Social science & medicine.

[32]  O. Chanel,et al.  Can a Circular Payment Card Format Effectively Elicit Preferences? Evidence From a Survey on a Mandatory Health Insurance Scheme in Tunisia , 2017, Applied Health Economics and Health Policy.

[33]  Jeffrey M. Wooldridge,et al.  Solutions Manual and Supplementary Materials for Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data , 2003 .

[34]  Wuyang Hu,et al.  Consumer Willingness to Pay for Fair Trade Coffee: A Chinese Case Study , 2012, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

[35]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  A new look at anchoring effects: basic anchoring and its antecedents. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[36]  J. R. DeShazo,et al.  Designing Transactions without Framing Effects in Iterative Question Formats , 2002 .

[37]  J. Moatti,et al.  Fairness in healthcare finance and delivery: what about Tunisia? , 2014, Health policy and planning.

[38]  M. Johannesson,et al.  Stated Preferences, Real Behaviour and Anchoring: Some Empirical Evidence , 1999 .