Does question order influence sensitivity to scope? Empirical findings from a web-based contingent valuation study

This paper examines the relationship between question order and sensitivity to scope in a large-scale web-based stated preference survey using an Internet panel. Results are presented from a contingent valuation survey in which each individual was asked to value two independent gains in life expectancy. Using split-sample data for question order we are able to study sensitivity to scope by carrying out an internal as well as an external scope test, and to examine whether question order influences sensitivity to scope. Finally, we address whether our results raise some specific concerns regarding the use of web-based surveys. Overall we find that choice of elicitation approach – in this case bottom-up versus top-down – influences the stated willingness-to-pay values leading to order effects and differences in scope sensitivity. Our findings demonstrate that elicitation approach affects the decision-making strategy, suggesting that preferences at least to some extent are reference dependent and constructed during the elicitation task. In addition, our findings indicate some relation between scope insensitivity, time spent on filling out the questionnaire and experience as an Internet panel member.

[1]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[2]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity , 2004 .

[3]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[4]  Nicholas E. Flores,et al.  Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence , 2000 .

[5]  D. Schwappach,et al.  "Quick and dirty numbers"? The reliability of a stated-preference technique for the measurement of preferences for resource allocation. , 2006, Journal of health economics.

[6]  J. Nielsen Use of the Internet for willingness-to-pay surveys: A comparison of face-to-face and web-based interviews , 2011 .

[7]  Constance F. Citro,et al.  Panel surveys: Adding the fourth dimension , 1995 .

[8]  Richard H. Thaler,et al.  Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice , 1985, Mark. Sci..

[9]  Angela Robinson,et al.  Responsibility, scale and the valuation of rail safety , 2010 .

[10]  P. Slovic The Construction of Preference , 1995 .

[11]  D. Kahneman Reference points, anchors, norms, and mixed feelings. , 1992 .

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

[13]  James K. Hammitt,et al.  Effects of Disease Type and Latency on the Value of Mortality Risk , 2003 .

[14]  J. Baron Biases in the quantitative measurement of values for public decisions , 1997 .

[15]  Dominique Ami,et al.  Final Report on the monetary valuation of mortality and morbidity risks from air pollution , 2007 .

[16]  Robert Sugden,et al.  On Money Pumps , 2001, Games Econ. Behav..

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

[18]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Investigating Insensitivity to Scope: A Split-Sample Test of Perceived Scheme Realism , 2004, Land Economics.

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

[20]  D. Ariely,et al.  “Coherent Arbitrariness”: Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences , 2003 .

[21]  M. Jones-Lee,et al.  Valuation of Health Benefits Associated with Reductions in Air Pollution , 2004 .

[22]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction , 1992 .

[23]  Richard D. Smith Sensitivity to scale in contingent valuation: the importance of the budget constraint. , 2005, Journal of health economics.

[24]  I. Bateman,et al.  Budget-Constraint, Temporal, and Question-Ordering Effects in Contingent Valuation Studies , 1997 .

[25]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation , 1994 .

[26]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Incorporating the Irrelevant: Anchors in Judgments of Belief and Value , 2002 .

[27]  Lana Friesen,et al.  The causes of order effects in contingent valuation surveys: An experimental investigation , 2008 .

[28]  M. Hammerton,et al.  THE VALUE OF SAFETY: RESULTS OF A NATIONAL SAMPLE SURVEY. IN: URBAN TRANSPORT , 1985 .

[29]  G. Loomes,et al.  Imprecise Preferences and Survey Design in Contingent Valuation , 1997 .

[30]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Why the WTA-WTP disparity matters , 1999 .

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

[32]  Knut Veisten,et al.  Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. , 2004, Journal of environmental management.