On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity

By Ian J. Bateman, M. Cole, Philip Cooper, S. Georgiou, D. Hadley, Gregory L. Poe. 2004

176 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, General Decision Sciences

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8e7131bffc2e3de94c8ffd9582e660d35b6f0f11

How researchers see this paper

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

In Economics and Econometrics

In General Decision Sciences

Citations in the corpus

Testing the Fundamental Assumption of Choice Experiments: Are Values Absolute or Relative? (2011, background): “…is evidence that raising awareness of a wider choice set (wider payoffs, different sizes of goods, etc.) removes anomalies within that wider set (Bateman et al. 2004) and that learning about the frames of valuation experiments may indeed allow respondents to discover preferences that are…”
Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness (2008, background): “Each animal welfare good was presented as mutually exclusive, thereby avoiding substitution and allied sequencing effects [5, 6, 16].”
External Tests of Scope and Embedding in Stated Preference Choice Experiments: An Application to Endangered Species Valuation (2011, methodology): “Since we use choice experiments, some issues that arise with scope tests using sequential and nested contingent valuation questions (Carson et al. 1998; Bateman et al. 2004) are avoided.”
The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP (2006, background): “11 Tests for ordering effects showed that these were insignificant, which we argue is a consequence of respondents’ prior awareness of all schemes before valuations were elicited (Bateman et al., 2004).”
Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies (2012, background): “One design factor that has been shown to be important in mitigating ordering effects in repeated contingent valuation (CV) questions, is whether the series of tasks are revealed to respondents before the exercise (so-called advanced disclosure) or whether they are revealed task by task as the exerci”
Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies (2017, background): “2005), sequencing effects (Bateman et al. 2004; Day and Prades 2010; Day et al. 2012), and attribute nonattendance (Campbell, Hutchinson, and Scarpa 2008; Scarpa et al.”
How reliable are meta-analyses for international benefit transfers? (2008, unknown): “See for example Bateman et al (2004) and Heberlein et al (2005) The simplest approach to estimating the meta-model in (2), which has been used in several MA studies (Loomis and White, 1996; Rosenberger and Loomis, 2000b), is to treat all WTP observations as independent replications and hence assume…”