An experimental investigation of explanations for inconsistencies in responses to second offers in double referenda |
| |
Authors: | Anthony C. Burton Katherine S. Carson Susan M. Chilton W. George Hutchinson |
| |
Affiliation: | a Economics and Operational Research Division, Department of Health, Quarry House, Quarry Hill, Leeds LS2 7UE, UK;b Department of Economics and Geography, United States Air Force Academy, HQ USAFA/DFEG, 2354 Fairchild Drive, Ste. 6K110, USAF Academy, CO 80840-6299, USA;c University of Newcastle upon Tyne Business School-Economics, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK;d Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, Queen's University, Belfast, Northern Ireland, BT9 5PX, UK |
| |
Abstract: | This paper demonstrates the potential for induced preference experiments to test previously unverified explanations of observed behavior in contingent valuation surveys. The NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation called for experimental evidence on potential biases in the double referendum format. We test Carson, Groves, and Machina's (Incentives and informational properties of preference questions, Plenary address to the European Association of Resource and Environmental Economists, Oslo, Norway, June 1999) simple cost uncertainty and weighted averaging explanations of inconsistent responses to follow-up offers in such double referenda against a baseline of certainty and truthful preference revelation. The results find evidence to support the Weighted Average hypothesis. Results regarding the cost uncertainty hypothesis are more ambiguous and merit further investigation. |
| |
Keywords: | Experimental economics Contingent valuation Double referenda Induced preferences |
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录! |
|