Incentive Incompatibility and Starting-Point Bias in Iterative Valuation Questions

By John C. Whitehead. Land Economics, 2002

166 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The Net Benefit of Saving the Asian Elephant: A Policy and Contingent Valuation Study (2004, result): “Although at first glance, this approach may appear to be an ‘iterative bidding approach’ (cf. Boyle and Bishop, 1987; Randall et al., 1974; Whitehead, 2002), closer analysis shows that these two approaches differ.”
A general model of starting point bias in double-bounded dichotomous contingent valuation surveys (2005, background): “15 As far as we know, other than Whithead’s [22] study which has estimated a non-stochastic nay-saying bias, there is no study that has empirically estimated the magnitude of the yea-saying bias even though there is a rich literature on the presence of yea-saying bias in CV studies.”
Modeling Elicitation effects in contingent valuation studies: a Monte Carlo Analysis of the bivariate approach (2005, background): “This point of view seems largely subscribed by Whitehead (2002), but with an important qualification: the double bound model should be used, with appropriate corrections for anchoring or other kinds of bias, when the initial bids are poorly chosen, i.e. they do not represent adequately the…”