Yea-Saying in Contingent Valuation Surveys

Blamey, Russell K.; Bennett, Jeff; Morrison, Michael A.

doi:10.2307/3146997

Cited by 190 publications

(140 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

134

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hanneman (1984Hanneman ( , 1985 argued that a dichotomous choice question yields a more meaningful response than an open-ended format. Blamey et al (1999) argued that respondents might not respond to a dichotomous choice valuation question carefully and there is a chance of 'yea-say', that is respondents will say 'yes' without paying attention to the stated amount. Thus, there is a need to make a consistency check.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Willingness to pay and municipal water pricing in transition: a case study

Majumdar

Gupta

2009

Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Water utilities in Calcutta, India are historically subsidized. This has kept residents quite unfamiliar with the concept of volumetric pricing of water. But pricing strategies have recently been receiving attention and the charges regime appears to be in transition. However, pricing with the objective of full cost recovery may not be feasible or even desirable in the transitional phase. The purpose of the article is to formulate a water pricing principle by using consumers' willingness to pay (WTP). A contingent valuation study revealed that people were willing to pay a charge of Rs. 3.18 per kiloliter for a monthly average household water use of 12.59 kiloliters. Such a principle, which considers consumers' WTP, may neutralize the political and public resentment in the phase of transition and can be a base for full cost recovery in the future. Respondents also expressed an opinion that the poor should receive some support from the government and contribute a part for smooth functioning of the water supply system.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Willingness to pay and municipal water pricing in transition: a case study

Majumdar

Gupta

2009

Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As noted by Brown et al (1996), Blamey et al (1999), and Holmes and Kramer (1995), yea-saying appears to play a significant role in many CVM studies. Kanninen (1995), for example, estimated that 20% of her respondents were yea-sayers, and many researchers have suggested that yea-saying may be a factor associated with hypothetical bias.…”

Section: Certaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation

Samnaliev

Stevens

2006

Ecological Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A field test of two types of certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation of public lands indicated that a 10-point certainty scale reduced WTP estimates by about half. Adjusting for uncertainty via a dNot SureT option did not reduce WTP estimates but the variance increased. There are several differences between these two ways of accounting for respondents' uncertainty, which may suggest why they provide different WTP value estimates and variances. D 2005 Published by Elsevier B.V.

show abstract

“…First used by Blamey et al (1999) and Loomis et al (1999), this approach, called "dissonance minimising" by Blamey et al, is based on the view that hypothetical bias or yea-saying results from cognitive dissonance, which is an "emotional state set up when two simultaneously held attitudes or cognitions are inconsistent or when there is a conflic between belief and overt behaviour" (Reber 1985, p. 129). As suggested by Brown et al (1996), the standard dichotomous choice contingent valuation format may place respondents in the awkward position of choosing between two competing objectives: honestly responding to the bid level and indicating whether or not they favour provision of the good.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The dissonance minimizing (DM) format adds response categories that permit respondents to express support for a program without having to vote in favour of increased expenditure. For example, in the Blamey et al (1999) study the extra response categories included "I support the [program] … but it's not worth $50 to me", "I support the [program] … but I cannot afford $50", and "I support the [program] but not if it requires a [fee] of any amount". By decoupling the choice of whether or not to support the environmental program from the commitment of dollars, this questioning format attempts to reduce dissonance and hypothetical bias.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing the Effectiveness of Certainty Scales, Cheap Talk, and Dissonance-Minimization in Reducing Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies

Morrison

Brown

2009

Environ Resource Econ

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stated preference methods such as contingent valuation and choice modeling are subject to various biases that may lead to differences between actual and hypothetical willingness to pay. Cheap talk, follow-up certainty scales, and dissonance minimization are three techniques for reducing this hypothetical bias. Cheap talk and certainty scales have received considerable attention in the literature, but dissonance minimization has not previously been experimentally tested. Using a four-way split sample design involving over 600 subjects, results from an actual referendum on provision of a quasi-public good were compared with three similar but contingent referenda employing the three bias-reducing techniques. Hypothetical bias was again present. Certainty scales, when properly calibrated, and dissonance minimization were found to be most effective in reducing the bias.

show abstract

Yea-Saying in Contingent Valuation Surveys

Cited by 190 publications

References 33 publications

Willingness to pay and municipal water pricing in transition: a case study

Willingness to pay and municipal water pricing in transition: a case study

A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation

Testing the Effectiveness of Certainty Scales, Cheap Talk, and Dissonance-Minimization in Reducing Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About