data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ebbe5/ebbe5843c3d592c8b2a99a20f6f779a7409091b4" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bb24e/bb24e861984efc99265969295803fddd342d5bda" alt=""
Author: O'Conor R.M. Johannesson M. Johansson P-O.
Publisher: Springer Publishing Company
ISSN: 0924-6460
Source: Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol.13, Iss.2, 1999-03, pp. : 235-248
Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.
Abstract
We compare different contingent valuation question formats with each other and with observed behaviour for a non-monetary estimation task, the expected number of kilometers travelled by automobile. Open-ended questions, open-ended follow-up questions, dichotomous choice (DC) questions, and double-bound DC questions are included. The single and double-bound DC questions result in an estimated mean about twice as high as the actual value and the open-ended mean. The DC question overestimation seems to be due to an anchoring effect leading to ``yea-saying'' behaviour. Our results about the difference between DC questions and open-ended questions is consistent with the pattern observed in contingent valuations studies of the willingness to pay. Our results indicates that DC questions seem to be associated with a general overestimation problem that is present even for simple non-monetary estimation tasks.
Related content
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ebbe5/ebbe5843c3d592c8b2a99a20f6f779a7409091b4" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bb24e/bb24e861984efc99265969295803fddd342d5bda" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ebbe5/ebbe5843c3d592c8b2a99a20f6f779a7409091b4" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bb24e/bb24e861984efc99265969295803fddd342d5bda" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ebbe5/ebbe5843c3d592c8b2a99a20f6f779a7409091b4" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bb24e/bb24e861984efc99265969295803fddd342d5bda" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ebbe5/ebbe5843c3d592c8b2a99a20f6f779a7409091b4" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bb24e/bb24e861984efc99265969295803fddd342d5bda" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ebbe5/ebbe5843c3d592c8b2a99a20f6f779a7409091b4" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bb24e/bb24e861984efc99265969295803fddd342d5bda" alt=""
Disequilibrium and uncertainty in cointegrated systems: Some empirical evidence
By Lee T.-H.
Economics Letters, Vol. 49, Iss. 2, 1995-08 ,pp. :