Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness

We extend the contingent valuation (CV) method to test three differing conceptions of individuals' preferences as either (i) a-priori well-formed or readily divined and revealed through a single dichotomous choice question (as per the NOAA CV guidelines [K. Arrow, R. Solow, P.R. Portney, E.E. Leamer, R. Radner, H. Schuman, Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation, Fed. Reg. 58 (1993) 4601-4614]); (ii) learned or 'discovered' through a process of repetition and experience [J.A. List, Does market experience eliminate market anomalies? Q. J. Econ. (2003) 41-72; C.R. Plott, Rational individual behaviour in markets and social choice processes: the discovered preference hypothesis, in: K. Arrow, E. Colombatto, M. Perleman, C. Schmidt (Eds.), Rational Foundations of Economic Behaviour, Macmillan, London, St. Martin's, New York, 1996, pp. 225-250]; (iii) internally coherent but strongly influenced by some initial arbitrary anchor [D. Ariely, G. Loewenstein, D. Prelec, 'Coherent arbitrariness': stable demand curves without stable preferences, Q. J. Econ. 118(1) (2003) 73-105]. Findings reject both the first and last of these conceptions in favour of a model in which preferences converge towards standard expectations through a process of repetition and learning. In doing so, we show that such a 'learning design CV' method overturns the 'stylised facts' of bias and anchoring within the double bound dichotomous choice elicitation format.

[1]  Robert Tibshirani,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap , 1994 .

[2]  K. S. Carson,et al.  Resolving questions about bias in real and hypothetical referenda , 2005 .

[3]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  Incentive and informational properties of preference questions , 2007 .

[4]  Charles R. Plott,et al.  Rational Individual Behavior in Markets and Social Choice Processes: the Discovered Preference Hypothesis , 1993 .

[5]  M. Hanemann,et al.  One-and-One-Half-Bound Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation , 2001, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[6]  J. R. DeShazo,et al.  Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency , 2002 .

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

[8]  T. Schroeder,et al.  Experimental Auction Procedure: Impact on Valuation of Quality Differentiated Goods , 2004 .

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

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

[11]  Jean-Robert Tyran,et al.  Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 19, Number 4—Fall 2005—Pages 43–66 Individual Irrationality and Aggregate Outcomes , 2022 .

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

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

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

[15]  Daniel McFadden,et al.  Contingent Valuation and Social Choice , 1994 .

[16]  A. Rubinstein.  Similarity and decision-making under risk (is there a utility theory resolution to the Allais paradox?) , 1988 .

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

[18]  R. G. Cummings,et al.  Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible? , 1997, Journal of Political Economy.

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

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

[21]  E. A. Cottrell.  The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California , 1932, American Political Science Review.

[22]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Does Living in California Make People Happy? A Focusing Illusion in Judgments of Life Satisfaction , 1998 .

[23]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation , 2001 .

[24]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  Welfare Measurements Using Contingent Valuation: A Comparison of Techniques , 1988 .

[25]  Nicholas E. Flores,et al.  Sequencing and Valuing Public Goods , 1998 .

[26]  I. Bateman.  Economic valuation with stated preference techniques : a manual : department for transport , 2002 .

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

[28]  T. Brown,et al.  Evaluating the Validity of the Dichotomous Choice Question Format in Contingent Valuation , 1997 .

[29]  David M. Grether,et al.  The preference reversal phenomenon: Response mode, markets and incentives , 1996 .

[30]  R. Kopp,et al.  Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive Use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill , 2003 .

[31]  Ariel Rubinstein.  Similarity and Decision Making Under Risk , 2010 .

[32]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies , 1995 .

[33]  J. List.  Does market experience eliminate market anomalies , 2003 .

[34]  I. Bateman,et al.  Comparing contingent valuation and contingent ranking: a case study considering the benefits of urban river water quality improvements. , 2006, Journal of environmental management.

[35]  M. Satterthwaite.  Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions , 1975 .

[36]  R. G. Cummings,et al.  Induced-value tests of the referendum voting mechanism , 2001 .

[37]  I. Bateman,et al.  Improved Estimation of Willingness to Pay in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies , 1998 .

[38]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  Modeling Response Incentive Effects in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Data , 1997 .

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

[40]  A. Tversky.  Features of Similarity , 1977 .

[41]  I. Bateman,et al.  Efficiency Gains Afforded by Improved Bid Design versus Follow-up Valuation Questions in Discrete-Choice CV Studies , 2000 .

[42]  Fang-Fang Tang,et al.  The Endowment Effect and Repeated Market Trials: Is the Vickrey Auction Demand Revealing? , 2001 .

[43]  C. Starmer,et al.  Preference Anomalies, Preference Elicitation and the Discovered Preference Hypothesis , 2005 .

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

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

[46]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Economic Valuation With Stated Preference Techniques , 2002 .

[47]  H. Varian.  Intermediate Microeconomics: A Modern Approach , 1987 .

[48]  C. Plott,et al.  The Willingness to Pay-Willingness to Accept Gap, the 'Endowment Effect,' Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations , 2005 .

[49]  Wuyang Hu,et al.  Labeling Context and Reference Point Effects in Models of Food Attribute Demand , 2006 .

[50]  A. Gibbard.  Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result , 1973 .