How Do Respondents with Uncertain Willingness to Pay Answer Contingent Valuation Questions?

By R. Ready, S. Navrud, Rw. Richard Dubourg. Land Economics, 2001

199 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, General Decision Sciences

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f2e6f70d39a3f27983e6ded60868d95387494518

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

Payment Certainty in Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Responses: Results from a Field Validity Test (2003, result): “…that respondents who are uncertain of their values will tend to “yea-say” when asked a single dichotomous choice question, a result that has been replicated elsewhere (e.g. Ready, Navrud, and Dubourg, 2001) Finally, in an examination of convergent validity, we compare the MBDC and FCQ methods.”
Coherent Arbitrariness: On Value Uncertainty for Environmental Goods (2009, unknown): “Ready, Navrud, and Dubourg (2001) conditioned responses to both dichotomous choice and payment card designs for contingent valuation using statements concerning how sure respondents were about whether they would really pay the amount in question.”
The value of mortality risk reductions in Delhi, India (2006, background): “14 Ready et al. (2004) however finds that context effects are not significant.”
Testing the Effectiveness of Certainty Scales, Cheap Talk, and Dissonance-Minimization in Reducing Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies (2009, background): “…(yes/no) format with a six-part response format with the labels definitely yes, probably yes, maybe yes, and then three similar categories for no. 5 Ready et al. (2001) tried a hybrid of these two versions in the form of six fi ed categories some of which included quantifie (i.e., 95% sure)…”
Eliciting Willingness to Pay without Bias using Follow-up Certainty Statements: Comparisons between Probably/Definitely and a 10-point Certainty Scale (2009, unknown): “Ready et al. (2001) find that responses from dichotomous choice and payment card formats for valuing changes in health converge for respondents who are certain.”
Eliciting Willingness to Pay Without Bias: Evidence from a Field Experiment (2008, unknown): “…important variant of this approach incorporates different degrees of certainty directly into the contingent valuation questions and adjusts the estimated willingness to pay (Johannesson et al., 1993; Ready et al., 1995, 2001; Alberini et al., 2003; Evans et al., 2003; Vossler and Poe, 2005).”
Using Respondent Uncertainty to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in a Stated Choice Experiment (2010, background): “Others have investigated the role that respondent uncertainty plays in motivating differences among elicitation formats in estimated WTP (Welsh and Poe 1998; Ready, Navrud, and Dubourg 2001).”