Designing Transactions without Framing Effects in Iterative Question Formats

Abstract Several studies document that iterative question formats used in contingent valuation studies produce anomalies in respondent behavior that appear to threaten the validity of welfare estimates. By decomposing iterative question formats into their ascending and descending sequences, we show that these anomalies occur only in ascending sequences. We describe the conditions under which comparable patterns of behavior are likely to be found in other iterative question formats that begin with a discrete willingness-to-pay question. We then develop a unified explanation of these anomalies using our model of framing based on prospect theory. We provide the first head-to-head test of rival explanations of these behavioral patterns by developing refutable hypotheses for the strategic behavior, yea-saying, anchoring, and cost-expectations models. Finally, based on our own statistically robust model, we show how these anomalies can be eliminated without loss of the statistical efficiency of most iterative question formats.

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

[2]  A. Tversky,et al.  Rational choice and the framing of decisions , 1990 .

[3]  G. Northcraft,et al.  Opportunity costs and the framing of resource allocation decisions , 1986 .

[4]  Randall A. Kramer,et al.  An Independent Sample Test of Yea-Saying and Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous-Choice Contingent Valuation , 1995 .

[5]  Leslie Godfrey.  Misspecification Tests in Econometrics: The Lagrange Multiplier Principle and Other Approaches , 1988 .

[6]  A. Tversky,et al.  Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model , 1991 .

[7]  Barbara Kanninen,et al.  Optimal Experimental Design for Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation , 1993 .

[8]  Anna Alberini,et al.  Efficiency vs Bias of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates: Bivariate and Interval-Data Models , 1995 .

[9]  Daniel McFadden,et al.  Issues in the Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods: Methodologies for Data Collection and Analysis , 1993 .

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

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

[12]  H. Markowitz.  The Utility of Wealth , 1952, Journal of Political Economy.

[13]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision under Risk Author ( s ) : , 2007 .

[14]  G. Northcraft,et al.  Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions , 1987 .

[15]  P. Slovic,et al.  Preference Reversals: A Broader Perspective , 1983 .

[16]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased? , 1979 .

[17]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[18]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  Valuing public goods: discrete versus continuous contingent-valuation responses. , 1996 .

[19]  M. Bazerman,et al.  Cognition and Rationality in Negotiation , 1991 .

[20]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and developing Countries , 2001 .

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

[22]  J. Cooper.  Optimal Bid Selection for Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys , 1993 .

[23]  W. Hanemann,et al.  A Contingent Valuation Study of Lost Passive Use Values Resulting From the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill , 1992 .

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

[25]  K. Keniston,et al.  Yeasayers and naysayers: agreeing response set as a personality variable. , 1960, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[26]  M. Thayer.  Contingent valuation techniques for assessing environmental impacts: Further evidence , 1981 .

[27]  Vandra L. Huber,et al.  The framing of negotiations: Contextual versus task frames , 1987 .

[28]  Jerry A. Hausman,et al.  Contingent valuation : a critical assessment , 1993 .

[29]  John Quiggin,et al.  Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up Questionnaire , 1994 .

[30]  R. Carson,et al.  Valuing the Preservation of Australia's Kakadu Conservation Zone , 1994 .

[31]  R. Turner,et al.  A Test of the Equality of Closed-Ended and Open-Ended Contingent Valuations , 1993 .

[32]  Dale Whittington,et al.  Household demand for improved sanitation services in Kumasi, Ghana: A contingent valuation study , 1993 .

[33]  Edgar Crane,et al.  Response Bias, Yea-Saying, and the Double Negative , 1975 .

[34]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  Some Issues In Continuous - And Discrete - Response Contingent Valuation Studies , 1985 .

[35]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF DISCRETE-RESPONSE CV DATA , 1996 .

[36]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation , 1991 .