Ambivalent statements in contingent valuation studies: inclusive response formats and giving respondents time to think

Svedsäter, Henrik

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8489.2007.00346.x

Cited by 21 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Group interactions, however, could have been the driver of increased uncertainty in MacMillan et al's (2002) results, rather than the effect of time to think. Our finding is similar, however, to Svedsater (2007), who found that TTT reduced respondents' uncertainty. Comparing real versus hypothetical (stated) purchases of a diabetes management program, Blumenschein et al (2008) find that dropping respondents who said they were less than "absolutely sure" from the analysis reduced nearly all of the gap between real and hypothetical choice (a standard cheap talk script had no significant effect).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Giving Stated Preference Respondents “Time to Think”: Results From Four Countries

Cook

Jeuland

Maskery

et al. 2011

Environ Resource Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies have found that contingent valuation (CV) respondents who are given overnight to reflect on a CV scenario have 30 -40% lower average willingness-to-pay (WTP) than respondents who are interviewed in a single session. This "time to think" (TTT) effect could explain much of the gap between real and hypothetical WTP observed in experimental studies. Yet giving time to think is still rare in binary or multinomial discrete choice studies. We review the literature on increasing survey respondents' opportunities to reflect on their answers and synthesize results from parallel TTT studies on private vaccine demand in four countries. Across all four countries, we find robust and consistent evidence from both raw data and multivariate models for a TTT effect: giving respondents overnight to think reduced the probability that a respondent said he or she would buy the hypothetical vaccines. Average WTP fell approximately 40%. Respondents with time to think were also more certain of their answers, and a majority said they used the opportunity to consult with their spouse or family. We conclude with a discussion of why researchers might be hesitant to adopt the TTT methodology.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Giving Stated Preference Respondents “Time to Think”: Results From Four Countries

Cook

Jeuland

Maskery

et al. 2011

Environ Resource Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In similar fashion to Ready et al (1995) and Svedsater (2007), PC responses included, 'I definitely would adopt it', 'I probably would adopt it', 'I would slightly lean towards adopting it', 'I would slightly lean towards not adopting it', 'I probably would not adopt it', and 'I definitely would not adopt it'. Similar to Ready et al (2001), one of two follow-up questions to the DC format was to be answered, depending upon the response.…”

Section: The Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2001;Groothuis and Whitehead 2002;Alberini et al . 2003;Caudill and Groothuis 2005;Svedsater 2007). Though none of these studies has dealt with technology adoption, two are particularly relevant for this study.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rotational grazing adoption in cattle production under a cost‐share agreement: does uncertainty have a role in conservation technology adoption?

Kim

Gillespie

Paudel

2008

Aus J Agri & Res Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rotational grazing has been promoted as a best management practice with environmental benefits and associated higher revenue. Its adoption rate has been relatively low. This study investigates the role of uncertainty in the adoption of rotational grazing with a cost-share by cattle producers. Mail survey results indicate that 63-71 per cent of cattle producers are uncertain about adoption with a government cost-share. The study suggests that the possibility of uncertainty should be considered in cases where willingness-to-pay is elicited in the context of adoption of technology.

show abstract

“…Whittington et al 1992;Cook et al 2007Cook et al , 2012Svedsäter 2007). In such surveys, respondents are interviewed face-to-face in their homes, given a certain time to think about the valuation scenario and their responses (typically one night) and contacted again on the second day to state their WTP or discrete choices.…”

Section: Response Time Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are Fast Responses More Random? Testing the Effect of Response Time on Scale in an Online Choice Experiment

Bӧrger

2015

Environ Resource Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scepticism over stated preference surveys conducted online revolves around the concerns over "professional respondents" who might rush through the questionnaire without sufficiently considering the information provided. To gain insight on the validity of this phenomenon and test the effect of response time on choice randomness, this study makes use of a recently conducted choice experiment survey on ecological and amenity effects of an offshore windfarm in the UK. The positive relationship between self-rated and inferred attribute attendance and response time is taken as evidence for a link between response time and cognitive effort. Subsequently, the generalised multinomial logit model is employed to test the effect of response time on scale, which indicates the weight of the deterministic relative to the error component in the random utility model. Results show that longer response time increases scale, i.e. decreases choice randomness. This positive scale effect of response time is further found to be non-linear and wear off at some point beyond which extreme response time decreases scale. While response time does not systematically affect welfare estimates, higher response time increases the precision of such estimates. These effects persist when self-reported choice certainty is controlled for. Implications of the results for online stated preference surveys and further research are discussed.

show abstract

Ambivalent statements in contingent valuation studies: inclusive response formats and giving respondents time to think

Cited by 21 publications

References 37 publications

Giving Stated Preference Respondents “Time to Think”: Results From Four Countries

Giving Stated Preference Respondents “Time to Think”: Results From Four Countries

Rotational grazing adoption in cattle production under a cost‐share agreement: does uncertainty have a role in conservation technology adoption?

Are Fast Responses More Random? Testing the Effect of Response Time on Scale in an Online Choice Experiment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About