With a little help from an anchor: Discussion and evidence of anchoring effects in contingent valuation

Contingent valuation enjoys increasing popularity among transport, environmental and health economists, though the method has often been criticized. We discuss the main points of controversy, with a focus on anchoring effects. Available literature indicates that higher ambiguity, lower familiarity, relevance or involvement with the problem, a more trustworthy source and a more plausible bid tend to be associated with stronger anchoring effects. In two studies among informal caregivers we found that respondents use all sorts of anchors when eliciting their value of time. We end with a discussion of the substantive significance of CV for economics.

[1]  Mark S. Klock,et al.  The behavior of respondents in contingent valuation: Evidence on starting bids , 1989 .

[2]  D. Whynes,et al.  Eliciting Willingness to Pay: Comparing Closed-Ended with Open-Ended and Payment Scale Formats , 2003, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[3]  M. Koopmanschap,et al.  THE VALUATION OF INFORMAL CARE IN ECONOMIC APPRAISAL , 1999, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[4]  M. Machina.  Choice under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved , 1987 .

[5]  Mellers.  Judgement and decision making , 1998 .

[6]  M. Gold.  Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine , 2016 .

[7]  M. Johannesson,et al.  Economic evaluation in health care: is there a role for cost-benefit analysis? , 1991, Health policy.

[8]  M. Johannesson,et al.  Contingent valuation with an open-ended follow-up question: a test of scope effects. , 1997, Health economics.

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

[10]  Richard D. Smith,et al.  The Discrete-choice Willingness-to-pay Question Format in Health Economics: , 2000, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[11]  K. Blumenschein,et al.  On hypothetical bias and calibration in cost-benefit studies. , 2000, Health policy.

[12]  Catherine L. Kling,et al.  A new explanation for the WTP/WTA disparity , 2001 .

[13]  M Johannesson,et al.  Valuation of health changes with the contingent valuation method: a test of scope and question order effects. , 1996, Health economics.

[14]  E. Jane Luzar,et al.  Willingness to pay or intention to pay: The attitude-behavior relationship in contingent valuation , 1998 .

[15]  R. Sugden,et al.  Regret Theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty Review of Economic Studies , 1982 .

[16]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Value elicitation: Is there anything in there? , 1991 .

[17]  R. Schulz,et al.  Caregiving as a risk factor for mortality: the Caregiver Health Effects Study. , 1999, JAMA.

[18]  J. Hausman,et al.  Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number? , 1994 .

[19]  R. Thaler.  Toward a positive theory of consumer choice , 1980 .

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

[21]  J. Olsen,et al.  Theory versus practice: a review of 'willingness-to-pay' in health and health care. , 2001, Health economics.

[22]  J. Payne,et al.  How People Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of Willingness to Pay for an Environmental Regulation , 1994 .

[23]  Robyn M. Dawes,et al.  A message from psychologists to economists : mere predictability doesn ’ t matter like it should ( without a good story appended to it ) , 1999 .

[24]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Decision Making under Ambiguity , 1986 .

[25]  H. Luft,et al.  Willingness to pay for poison control centers. , 1997, Journal of health economics.

[26]  Werner Brouwer,et al.  Economic valuation of informal care: the contingent valuation method applied to informal caregiving. , 2005, Health economics.

[27]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Measures of Anchoring in Estimation Tasks , 1995 .

[28]  T Klose,et al.  The contingent valuation method in health care. , 1999, Health policy.

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

[30]  Robin M. Hogarth,et al.  Rational Choice: The Contrast Between Economics and Psychology. , 1988 .

[31]  R. Cookson,et al.  Incorporating psycho-social considerations into health valuation: an experimental study. , 2000, Journal of health economics.

[32]  P. Shackley,et al.  Using willingness to pay to value close substitutes: carrier screening for cystic fibrosis revisited. , 1997, Health economics.

[33]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem , 1990, Journal of Political Economy.

[34]  M. Koopmanschap,et al.  Instruments for assessing the burden of informal caregiving for stroke patients in clinical practice: a comparison of CSI, CRA, SCQ and self-rated burden , 2004, Clinical rehabilitation.

[35]  Richard D. Smith.  Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care: a critical assessment. , 2003, Health economics.

[36]  Glenn W. Harrison,et al.  Hypothetical Bias and Willingness to Accept , 2003 .

[37]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods , 1998 .

[38]  Marc A Koopmanschap,et al.  Burden of caregiving: evidence of objective burden, subjective burden, and quality of life impacts on informal caregivers of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. , 2004, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[39]  R. Hogarth.  Judgement and choice: The psychology of decision , 1982 .

[40]  I. Bateman,et al.  A Test of the Theory of Reference-Dependent Preferences , 1997 .

[41]  J. Olsen.  Aiding priority setting in health care: is there a role for the contingent valuation method? , 1997, Health economics.

[42]  Marc A. Koopmanschap,et al.  Economic valuation of informal care , 2004, The European Journal of Health Economics, formerly: HEPAC.

[43]  David K Whynes,et al.  Comparing willingness-to-pay: bidding game format versus open-ended and payment scale formats. , 2004, Health policy.

[44]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  Implications of Attitude Change Theories for Numerical Anchoring: Anchor Plausibility and the Limits of Anchor Effectiveness , 2001 .

[45]  D. Whynes,et al.  Evidence of range bias in contingent valuation payment scales. , 2004, Health economics.

[46]  M. Pauly,et al.  Universal health insurance in the Clinton plan: coverage as a tax-financed public good. , 1994, The journal of economic perspectives : a journal of the American Economic Association.

[47]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Anchoring, Activation, and the Construction of Values. , 1999, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

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

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

[50]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  Willingness To Pay and Willingness To Accept: How Much Can They Differ? Comment , 2003 .

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

[52]  M. Ryan,et al.  Valuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods. , 2004, Journal of health economics.

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

[54]  M. Drummond,et al.  Health Care Technology: Effectiveness, Efficiency and Public Policy@@@Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes , 1988 .

[55]  I. Ajzen.  Intuitive theories of events and the effects of base-rate information on prediction. , 1977 .

[56]  Determinants of the magnitude of willingness to accept relative to willingness to pay , 2001 .

[57]  D. Bromley.  Property rights and natural resource damage assessments , 1995 .

[58]  A Gafni,et al.  Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. , 1998, Health economics.

[59]  Magnus Johannesson,et al.  Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment. , 2001 .

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

[61]  William Samuelson,et al.  Status quo bias in decision making , 1988 .

[62]  C. Donaldson,et al.  The insensitivity of 'willingness-to-pay' to the size of the good: New evidence for health care , 2004 .

[63]  Catherine L. Kling,et al.  Willingness-To-Pay, Compensating Variation, and the Cost of Commitment , 2004 .