Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T14:30:16.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Heterogeneous anchoring in dichotomous choice valuation framework

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2016

Emmanuel Flachaire ,
Guillaume Hollard  and
Stéphane Luchini
Emmanuel Flachaire*
Affiliation:
Paris School of Economics, University of Paris I
Guillaume Hollard
Affiliation:
Paris School of Economics, University of Paris I, CNRS
Stéphane Luchini
Affiliation:
GREQAM-IDEP-CNRS
*
†EUREOUA, Maison des Sciences Economiques, 106-112 bd de l'Hopital, 75647 Paris Cedex 13, France, tel: +33-144078214, fax: +33-144078231, e-mail: Emmanuel.Flachaire@univ-paris1.fr
Get access

Summary

This article addresses the important issue of anchoring in contingent valuation surveys that use the double-bounded elicitation format. Anchoring occurs when responses to the follow-up dichotomous choice valuation question are influenced by the bid presented in the initial dichotomous choice question. Specifically, we adapt a theory from psychology to characterize respondents as those who are likely to anchor and those who are not. Using a model developed by Herriges and Shogren (1996), our method appears successful in discriminating between those who anchor and those who did not. An important result is that when controlling for anchoring – and allowing the degree of anchoring to differ between respondent groups – the efficiency of the double-bounded welfare estimate is greater than for the initial dichotomous choice question. This contrasts with earlier research that finds that the potential efficiency gain from the double-bounded questions is lost when anchoring is controlled for and that we are better off not asking follow-up questions.

Résumé

Résumé

Dans cette étude, nous nous intéressons au problème de l'ancrage dans les enquêtes d'évaluation contingente à doubles offres successives. Un tel problème apparaît lorsque les réponses obtenues sont influencées par les offres proposées aux individus.

Nous proposons une méthodologie, issue de la psychologie, afin de caractériser deux groupes distincts d'individus : un groupe sensible à l'ancrage et un autre qui ne l'est pas. Adaptant un modèle, proposé par Herriges and Shogren (1996) pour contrôler l'ancrage, nous montrons que la prise en compte d'une telle hétérogénéité permet d'obtenir des estimations plus précises que celles obtenues avec la prise en compte d'une seule offre. Ce résultat contraste avec ceux de la littérature, qui trouvent que le gain de précision obtenu avec la prise en compte d'une deuxième offre est en général perdu en présence d'ancrage significatif, à tel point qu'il vaut mieux ne pas proposer une deuxième offre.

Keywords

anchoringcontingent valuationheterogeneityframing effectsQ26C81D71ancrageévaluation contingentehétérogénéitéeffets de contexteQ26C81D71
Type
Research Article
Information
Recherches Économiques de Louvain/ Louvain Economic Review , Volume 73 , Issue 4 , 2007 , pp. 369 - 385
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 2007 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arrow, K., Solow, R. Portney, P.R. Learner, E.E. Radner, R. and Schuman, H. (1993, January). “Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation.” Technical Report 58 (10), p. 1601–1614.Google Scholar
Bateman, I. and Willis, K. (1999). Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carson, R. (1985). Three essays on contingent valuation: welfare economics, non-market goods, water quality. Ph.D dissertation, Département of agricultural economics and resource economics, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Claeys-Mekdade, C., Géniaux, G. and Luchini, S. (1999). “Quelle valeur attribuer à la Camargue ? Une perspective interdisciplinaire économie et sociologie.” In Point, P. (Ed.), La valeur économique des hydrosystèmes. Méthodes et modèles d’évaluation des services délivrés, Chapter 7, p. 137–168. Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
Farr, R.M. (1998). From collective to social representations: Aller et Retour. Culture and Psychology 4 (3), 275–296.Google Scholar
Galinsky, A. and Mussweiler, T. (2001). “First offers as anchors: the role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81 (4), 657–669.Google Scholar
Green, D., Jacowitz, K. Kahneman, D. and McFadden, D. (1998). “Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods.” Resource and Energy Economics 20, 85–116.Google Scholar
Grether, D. (1980). “Bayes rule as a descriptive model: The representativeness heuristic.” The Quaterly Journal of Economics 95 (3), 537–557.Google Scholar
Hanemann, M. and Kanninen, B. (1999). “The statistical analysis of discrete response CV data.” In Bateman, I. and Willis, K. (Eds.), Valuing Environmental Preferences. Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries, Chapter 11, p. 302–441. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hanemann, W., Loomis, J. and Kanninen, B. (1991). “Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73 (4), 1255–1623.Google Scholar
Hanemann, W.M. (1985). “Some issues in continuous and discrete response contingent valuation studies.” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural Economics 14 (aprii), 5–13.Google Scholar
Hausman, J. (1993). Contingent valuation: A critical assessment. North-Holland.Google Scholar
Herriges, J. and Shogren, J. (1996). “Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30, 112–131.Google Scholar
Hollard, G. and Luchini, S. (1999). “Théorie du choix social et représentations : analyse d’une enquête sur le tourisme vert en Camargue.” Working paper 99B06, GREQAM, Université de la Méditerranée Marseille, France.Google Scholar
Laslier, J.-F. (1997). Tournament solutions and majority voting. Studies in Economic Theory. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
List, J.A. (2004). “Neoclassical theory versus prospect theory: Evidence from the marketplace.” Econometrica 72 (2), 615–625.Google Scholar
Mac Fadden, D. and Leonard, G. (1993). Issues in the contingent valuation of environmental goods: Methodologies for data collection and analysis, Volume Contingent Valuation: a critical Assessment, p. 165–215. New York: North-Holland: Hausman.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. and T. Carson, R. (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The contingent Valuation Method. Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1961). La psychanalyse, son image et son public. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1998a). “]Presenting social representations: A conversation.” Culture and Psychology 4 (3), 371–410.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1998b). Psychologie sociale (7th ed.). Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Mussweiler, T. and Strack, F. (2001). “Considering the impossible: explaining the effects of implausible anchors.“ Social Cognition 19 (2), 145–160.Google Scholar
Strack, F. and Mussweiler, T. (2002). Resisting influence: Judgmental correction and its goals. In Forgas, J. and Williams, K. (Eds.), The Sydney symposium of social psychology: social influence, Chapter 12, p. 201–214. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974). “Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.” Science 185, 124–131.Google Scholar
Verges, P. (1994). Approche du noyau central: propriétés quantitatives et structurales. In Structures et transformations des représentations sociales, Textes de base en Sciences Sociales, Chapter 8, p. 233–253. Lausanne, Switzerland: Delachaux et Niestlé.Google Scholar
Viaud, J. and Roland-Levy, C. (2000). “A positional and representational analysis of consumption: households when facing debt and credit.” Journal of Economic Psychology 21, 411–432.Google Scholar