Does mode matter? A comparison of telephone, mail, and in-person treatments in contingent valuation surveys.

The choice of survey mode in contingent valuation research has long been debated in the literature. However, there is limited evidence as to how mode impacts behavior. Using an identical survey administered with telephone, mail, and in-person interviews, this is the first research to examine mode effects using all three commonly employed modes in contingent valuation research. Results show that there is some evidence of social desirability bias in the telephone survey. In addition, the role of income in the decision-making process is an important consideration.

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

[2]  Frederick Wiseman,et al.  METHODOLOGICAL BIAS IN PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS , 1972 .

[3]  Carol L. Silva,et al.  Effects of Total Cost and Group-Size Information on Willingness to Pay Responses: Open Ended vs. Dichotomous Choice , 1998 .

[4]  E. Singer,et al.  Survey research methods: A reader. , 1990 .

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

[6]  R. Berrens,et al.  Contingent valuation of rural tourism development with tests of scope and mode stability. , 1997 .

[7]  Gregory L. Poe,et al.  A Comparison of Hypothetical Phone and Mail Contingent Valuation Responses for Green-Pricing Electricity Programs , 1997 .

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

[9]  D. Dillman.  Mail and telephone surveys : the total design method , 1979 .

[10]  N. Hanley,et al.  Valuing the non-market benefits of wild goose conservation: a comparison of interview and group-based approaches , 2002 .

[11]  Robert Cameron Mitchell,et al.  Social Desirability Bias in Contingent Valuation Surveys Administered Through In-Person Interviews , 2003, Land Economics.

[12]  F. J. Fowler,et al.  Comparing telephone and mail responses to the CAHPS survey instrument. Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study. , 1999, Medical care.

[13]  Timothy O'Riordan,et al.  Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method , 1987 .

[14]  Laura O. Taylor,et al.  Do As You Say, Say As You Do: Evidence On Gender Differences In Actual And Stated Contributions To Public Goods , 2000 .

[15]  Anna Alberini,et al.  Handbook on Contingent Valuation , 2009 .

[16]  John C. Whitehead,et al.  Environmental Interest Group Behavior and Self‐Selection Bias in Contingent Valuation Mail Surveys , 1991 .

[17]  David J. Bjornstad,et al.  The contingent valuation of environmental resources: methodological issues and research needs. , 1996 .

[18]  Theresa F. Rogers,et al.  Interviews by Telephone and in Person Quality of Responses and Field Performance , 1976 .

[19]  J. Loomis,et al.  Evaluation of Mail and In-person Contingent Value Surveys: Results of a Study of Recreational Boaters , 1991 .

[20]  Paul R. Portney,et al.  The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care , 1994 .

[21]  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.

[22]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Comparison of Mail and Telephone-Mail Contingent Valuation Surveys , 1994 .

[23]  Nick Hanley,et al.  Valuing rural recreation benefits: an empirical comparison of two approaches. , 1989 .

[24]  J. Vaske,et al.  Mail versus Telephone Surveys: Potential Biases in Expenditure and Willingness-to-Pay Data , 1998 .

[25]  L. Midanik,et al.  Reports of alcohol-related harm: telephone versus face-to-face interviews. , 2001, Journal of studies on alcohol.