Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 167–177 | Cite as

Design of Stated Preference Surveys: Is There More to Learn from Behavioral Economics?

Article

Abstract

We discuss the design of stated preference (SP) surveys in light of findings in behavioral economics such as context dependence of preferences, learning, and differences between revealed and normative preferences. More specifically, we discuss four different areas: (1) revealed and normative preferences, (2) learning and constructed preferences, (3) context dependence, and (4) hypothetical bias. We argue that SP methods would benefit from adapting to some of the findings in behavioral economics, but also that behavioral economics may gain insights from studying SP methods.

Keywords

Stated preferences Behavioral economics 

JEL Classification

C91 D03 H4 Q51 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alpizar F, Carlsson F, Johansson-Stenman O (2008a) Anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity: evidence from voluntary contributions to a national park in Costa Rica. J Public Econ 92: 1047–1060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alpizar F, Carlsson F, Johansson-Stenman O (2008b) Does context matter more for hypothetical than for actual contributions. Evidence from a natural field experiment. Exp Econ 11: 299–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andreoni J, Petrie R (2004) Public good experiments without confidentiality: a glimpse into fund-raising. J Public Econ 88: 1605–1623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ariely D, Loewenstein G, Prelec D (2008) Coherent arbitrariness: stable demand curves without stable preferences, Working Paper Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  5. Bardsley N (2008) Dictator game giving: altruism or artifact. Exp Econ 11: 122–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bardsley N, Sausgruber R (2005) Conformity and reciprocity in public good provision. J Econ Psychol 26: 664–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bateman I, Burgess D, Hutchinson G, Matthews D (2008) Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness. J Environ Econ Manag 55: 127–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bateman I, Day B, Jones A, Jude S (2009) Reducing gain–loss asymmetry: a virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change. J Environ Econ Manag 58: 106–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bateman I, Mawby J (2004) First impressions count: interviewer appearance and information effects in stated preference studies. Ecol Econ 49: 47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bateman I, Munro A, Rhodes B, Starmer C, Sugden R (1997) A test of the theory of reference-dependent preferences. Q J Econ 112: 479–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bertrand M, Mullainathan S (2001) Do people mean what they say. Implications for subjective survey data. Am Econ Rev Papers Proc 91: 67–72Google Scholar
  12. Beshears J, Choi J, Laibson D, Madrian B (2008) How are preferences revealed? Working paperGoogle Scholar
  13. Camerer C, Issacharoff S, Loewenstein G, O’Donoghue T, Rabin M (2003) Regulation for conservatives: behavioral economics and the case for ‘asymmetric paternalism’. Univ Pennsylvania Law Rev 151: 1211–1254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carlsson F, Garcia J, Löfgren Å (2008) Conformity and the demand of environmental goods, Working papers in economics no. 286, Department of Economics, University of GothenburgGoogle Scholar
  15. Carlsson F, Martinsson P (2001) Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments. J Environ Econ Manag 41: 179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carlsson F, Martinsson P, Akay A (2009) The effect of power outages and cheap talk on willingness to pay to reduce outages, IZA Discussion paper series No. 4307Google Scholar
  17. Carson R, Mitchell R, Hanemann M, Kopp R, Presser S, Ruud PA (2003) Contingent valuation and lost passive use: damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environ Resour Econ 25: 257–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chang JB, Lusk J, Norwood FB (2009) How closely do hypothetical surveys and laboratory experiments predict field behavior. Am J Agric Econ 91: 518–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Choi J, Laibson D, Madrian B, Metrick A (2003) Optimal defaults. Am Econ Rev 93, Papers and Proceedings, pp 180–185Google Scholar
  20. Choi J, Laibson D, Madrian BC (2004) Plan design and 401(k) savings outcomes. Nat Tax J 57: 275–298Google Scholar
  21. Cook J, Whittington D, Canh D, Johnson FR, Nyamete A (2007) Reliability of stated preferences for cholera and typhoid vaccines with time to think in Hue Vietnam. Econ Inq 45: 100–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Corso P, Hammitt J, Graham J (2002) Valuing mortality-risk reduction: using visual aids to improve the validity of contingent valuation. J Risk Uncertain 23: 165–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cummings R, Harrison G, Rutström E (1995) Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: is the dichotomous choice approach incentive—compatible. Am Econ Rev 85: 260–266Google Scholar
  24. de Palma A, GM Myers, Papageorgiou YY (1995) Rational choice under an imperfect ability to choose. Am Econ Rev 84: 419–440Google Scholar
  25. De Shazo JR, Fermo G (2002) Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency. J Environ Econ Manag 44: 123–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fiore S, Harrison G, Hughes C, Rutström E (2009) Virtual experiments and environmental policy. J Environ Econ Manag 57: 65–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Frey B, Luechinger S, Stutzer A (2004) Valuing public goods: the life satisfaction approach. CESifo working paper series no. 1158Google Scholar
  28. Frey B, Meier S (2004) Social comparisons and pro-social behavior: testing “conditional cooperation” in a field experiment. Am Econ Rev 94: 1717–1722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Frey B, Stutzer A (2002) What can economists learn from happiness research. J Econ Lit 40: 402–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Frykblom P (1997) Hypothetical question modes and real willingness to pay. J Environ Econ Manag 34: 275–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gneezy U (2005) Deception: the role of consequences. Am Econ Rev 95: 384–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hammack J, Brown G (1974) Waterfowl and wetlands: toward bio-economic analysis. John-Hopkins Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  33. Hanemann M (1991) Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: how much can they differ. Am Econ Rev 81: 635–647Google Scholar
  34. Hanemann M (1994) Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. J Econ Perspect 8: 19–43Google Scholar
  35. Hanemann M (1999) The economic theory of WTP and WTA. In: Bateman IJ, Willis KG (eds) Valuing environmental preferences: theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU, and developing countries. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Heiner RA (1983) The origin of predictable behavior. Am Econ Rev 73: 560–595Google Scholar
  37. Herriges J, Shogren J (1996) Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. J Environ Econ Manag 30: 112–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Horowitz J, McConnell K (2002) A review of WTA/WTP studies. J Environ Econ Manag 44: 426–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hu W, Adamowicz W, Veeman M (2006) Labeling context and reference point effects in models of food attribute demand. Am J Agric Econ 88: 1034–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Johansson-Stenman O, Svedsäter H (2008) Measuring hypothetical bias in choice experiments: the importance of cognitive consistency. B-E J Econ Anal Policy 8, Article 41Google Scholar
  41. Johnson R, Mattews W, Bingham M (2000) Evaluating welfare-theoretic consistency in multiple response, stated-preference survey. TER Working Paper T-0003Google Scholar
  42. Kahneman D, Knetsch J, Thaler R (1990) Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the coase theorem. J Polit Econ 98: 1325–1348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kahneman D, Sugden R (2005) Experienced utility as a standard of policy evaluation. Environ Resour Econ 32: 161–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kahneman D, Wakker P, Sarin R (1997) Back to Bentham: explorations of experienced utility. Q J Econ 112: 375–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ladenburg J, Olsen S (2008) Gender specific starting point bias in choice experiments: evidence from an empirical study. J Environ Econ Manag 56: 275–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Laibson D (1997) Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. Q J Econ 112: 443–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Landry C, Lange A, List J, Price M, Rupp N (2006) Toward an understanding of the economics of charity: evidence from a field experiment. Q J Econ 121: 747–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Layton D, Brown G (2000) Heterogenous preferences regarding global climate change. Rev Econ Stat 82: 616–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Legget C, Kleckner N, Boyle K, Duffield J, Mitchell R (2003) Social desirability bias in contingent valuation surveys administered through in-person interviews. Land Econ 79: 561–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Levitt SD, List JA (2007) What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world. J Econ Perspect 21: 153–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. List J (2003) Does market experience eliminate market anomalies. Q J Econ 118: 41–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. List JA (2007) On the interpretation of giving in dictator games. J Polit Econ 115: 482–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. List J, Berrens R, Bohara A, Kerkvilet J (2004) Examining the role of social isolation on stated preferences. Am Econ Rev 94: 741–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. List J, Gallet C (2001) What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values. Environ Resour Econ 20: 241–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Loewenstein G, Ubel P (2008) Hedonic adaptation and the role of decision experience utility in public policy. J Public Econ 92: 1795–1810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Luechinger S (2009) Valuing air quality using the life satisfaction approach. Econ J 119: 482–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lusk J, Pruitt J, Norwood B (2006) External validity of a framed field experiment. Econ Lett 93: 285–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lusk J, Schroeder TC (2004) Are choice experiments incentive compatible. A test with quality differentiated beefsteaks. Am J Agric Econ 85: 840–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Madrian BC, Shea DF (2001) The power of suggestion: inertia in 401(k) participation and savings behavior. Q J Econ 116: 1149–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Murphy J, Allen G, Stevens T, Weatherhead D (2005) A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environ Resour Econ 30: 313–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Neill H, Cummings R, Ganderton P, Harrison G, McGuckin T (1994) Hypothetical surveys and real economic commitments. Land Econ 70: 145–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Noussair C., Robin S, Ruffieux B (2004) Do consumers really refuse to buy genetically modified food. Econ J 114: 102–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. O’Donoghue T, Rabin M (1999) Doing it now or later. Am Econ Rev 89: 103–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Plott C (1996) Rational individual behavior in markets and social choice processes: the discovered preference hypothesis. In: Arrow K, Colombatto E, Perleman M, Schmidt C (eds) Rational foundations of economic behavior. Macmillan, London, pp 225–250Google Scholar
  65. Rege M, Telle K (2004) The impact of social approval and framing on cooperation in public good situations. J Public Econ 88: 1625–1644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Shang J, Croson R (2006) Field experiments in charitable contribution: the impact of social influence on the voluntary provision of public goods. Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  67. Shogren JF, Fox JA, Hayes DJ, Roosen J (1999) Observed for food safety in retail, survey, and auction markets. Am J Agric Econ 81: 1192–1199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Shogren J, Taylor L (2008) On behavioral-environmental economics. Rev Environ Econ Policy 2: 26–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Soetevent AR (2005) Anonymity in giving in a natural context: an economic field experiment in thirty churches. J Public Econ 89: 2301–2323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sugden R (2007) Cost-benefit analysis as market simulation. A new approach to the problem of anomalies in environmental valuation. RFF Discussion Paper 07–28, Resources for the future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  71. Sugden R (2008) Why incoherent preferences do not justify paternalism. Const Polit Econ 19: 226–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sunstein C, Thaler R (2003a) Libertarian paternalism. Am Econ Rev Papers Proc 93(2): 175–179Google Scholar
  73. Sunstein C, Thaler R (2003b) Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron. Univ Chicago Law Rev 70: 1159–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Swait J, Adamowicz W (2001) The influence of task complexity on consumer choice: a latent class model of decision strategy switching. J Consumer Res 28:135–148. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/321952 Google Scholar
  75. Swait J, Adamowicz W, Hanemann M, Diederich A, Krosnick J, Layton D, Provencher W, Schkade D, Tourangeau R (2002) Context dependence and aggregation in disaggregate choice analysis. Market Lett 13: 195–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1991) Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-dependent model. Q J Econ 106: 1039–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tversky A, Simonson I (1993) Context-dependent preferences. Manag Sci 39: 1179–1189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. van Praag BMS, Baarsma B (2005) Using happiness surveys to value intangibles: the case of airport noise. Econ J 115: 224–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Welsch H (2009) Implications of happiness research for environmental economics. Ecol Econ 68: 2735–2742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Whittington D, Smith VK, Okorafor A, Okore A, Liu JL, McPhail A (1992) Giving respondents time to think in contingent valuation studies: a developing country application. J Environ Econ Manag 22: 205–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and LawUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations