Examining the Role of Social Isolation on Stated Preferences

By R. Berrens, Alok K. Bohara, Joe R. Kerkvliet, John A. List. 2004

186 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Gender Studies

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/15929491f9cedc0788b4c4f2e7a048c5c7a391e9

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 Gender Studies

Citations in the corpus

An Inferred Valuation Method (2009, background): “For example, List et al. (2004) showed that by using different value elicitation formats that varied the degree of anonymity, they could significantly influence WTP in both real and hypothetical treatments.”
Eliciting Willingness to Pay Without Bias: Evidence from a Field Experiment (2008, unknown): “List et al. (2004) found that subject anonymity can affect willingness to pay for a public good using a referendum format.”
Motives for sharing in social networks (2012, background): “For example, List et al. (2004), Leider et al. (2009), and DellaVigna et al. (2011) try to measure the ‘why’ of sharing, and find that social pressure and incentive-based motives are important.”
Experimental Evidence on Alternative Environmental Valuation Methods (2006, unknown): “29. Cummings and Taylor (1999, p. 664) only note that efforts ‘‘to obtain unbiased valuation responses with a much shorter version of the cheap talk script were unsuccessful.’’ 30. List et al. (2004, p. 749) draw some sweeping conclusions from their results: ‘‘...”
Measuring and Bounding Experimenter Demand (2018, unknown): “Barmettler et al. (2012) find no evidence that experimenter-participant anonymity affects behavior in standard social preference measures, while other studies document that nonanonymity in the lab can increase pro-social behavior (List et al., 2004).”
On the Norms of Charitable Giving in Islam: A Field Experiment (2012, result): “Those findings are in stark contrast to findings in previous studies: List et al. (2004) finds that voting to approve to the contributions for a public good are by 18% higher when observed by the solicitor (20% when anonymous, 38% when public).”
Anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity: Evidence from voluntary contributions to a national park in Costa Rica (2008, methodology): “Of more relevance to this study is List et al. (2004) They used three different information treatments: (i) completely anonymous responses, (ii) the experimenter knows the response, and (iii) the whole group knows the response.”
Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: Evidence from an empirical study (2008, background): “As one reviewer notes, anomalies exist in all stated preference and revealed preference surveys plus lab and field experiments. Even real behaviour can be anomalous [ 52 ].”
Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes (2011, unknown): “31 Loomis et al. (2006) compare a video format with telephone interview (including a mailed information booklet) and find similar WTP for both samples and no difference in reasons for refusing to pay. 32 A number of studies in the SP literature not reviewed here have investigated in detail such samp”