Effects of Varying the Location of Perceived Consequentiality Elicitation in a Discrete Choice Experiment Survey

References

1. ↵
   1. Andor, M. A.,
   2. M. Frondel, and
   3. S. Sommer

   . 2018. “Equity and the Willingness to Pay for Green Electricity in Germany.” Nature Energy 3 (10): 876–81.

   OpenUrl
2. ↵
   1. Arora, N.,
   2. R. Crastes dit Sourd,
   3. K. Hanson,
   4. D. Woldesenbet,
   5. A. Seifu, and
   6. M. Quaife

   . 2022. “Linking Health Worker Motivation with Their Stated Job Preferences: A Hybrid Choice Analysis in Ethiopia.” Social Science and Medicine 307: 115151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115151.

   OpenUrl
3. ↵
   1. Bargh, J. A., and
   2. T. L. Chartrand

   . 2000. “Studying the Mind in the Middle: A Practical Guide to Priming and Automaticity Research.” In Handbook of Research Methods in Social Psychology, edited by H. Reis and C. Judd, 253–85. New York: Cambridge University Press.
4. ↵
   1. Bem, D. J.

   1972. “Self-Perception Theory.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 6: 1–62.

   OpenUrl
5. ↵
   1. Börger, T.,
   2. T. G. Abate,
   3. M. Aanesen, and
   4. E. Zawojska

   . 2021. “Payment and Policy Consequentiality in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation: Examining Endogeneity of Self-Reported Statements.” Land Economics 97 (2): 407–24. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.97.2.407.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
6. ↵
   1. Budziński, W., and
   2. M. Czajkowski

   . 2022. “Endogeneity and Measurement Bias of the Indicator Variables in Hybrid Choice Models: A Monte Carlo Investigation.” Environmental and Resource Economics 83: 605–29.

   OpenUrl
7. ↵
   1. Budziński, W.,
   2. M. Czajkowski, and
   3. E. Zawojska

   . 2019. “Endogeneity of Self-Reported Consequentiality in Stated Preference Studies.” Paper presented at the International Choice Modeling Conference, Kobe, Japan, August 19–21.
8. ↵
   1. Carson, R. T., and
   2. T. Groves

   . 2007. “Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions.” Environmental and Resource Economics 37 (1): 181–210.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
9. ↵
   1. Carson, R. T.,
   2. T. Groves, and
   3. J. A. List

   . 2014. “Consequentiality: A Theoretical and Experimental Exploration of a Single Binary Choice.” Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 1 (1): 171–207.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
10. ↵
    1. Cvitanić, J.,
    2. D. Prelec,
    3. B. Riley, and
    4. B. Tereick

    . 2019. “Honesty via Choice-Matching.” American Economic Review: Insights 1 (2): 179–92.

    OpenUrl
11. ↵
    1. Czajkowski, M.,
    2. C. A. Vossler,
    3. W. Budziński,
    4. A. Wiśniewska, and
    5. E. Zawojska

    . 2017. “Addressing Empirical Challenges Related to the Incentive Compatibility of Stated Preferences Methods.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 142: 47–63.

    OpenUrl
12. ↵
    1. Day, B.,
    2. I. J. Bateman,
    3. R. T. Carson,
    4. D. Dupont,
    5. J. J. Louviere,
    6. S. Morimoto,
    7. R. Scarpa, and
    8. P. Wang

    . 2012. “Ordering Effects and Choice Set Awareness in Repeat-Response Stated Preference Studies.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 63 (1): 73–91.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
13. ↵
    1. DellaVigna, S., and
    2. D. Pope

    . 2022. “Stability of Experimental Results: Forecasts and Evidence.” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 14 (3): 889–925.

    OpenUrl
14. ↵
    1. Dillman, D. A.,
    2. J. D. Smyth, and
    3. L. M. Christian

    . 2009. Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
15. ↵
    1. Engler, D.,
    2. G. Gutsche, and
    3. E. Zawojska

    . 2021. “Trust in Institutions and Consequentiality Perceptions in a Stated Preference Survey.” AEA RCT Registry. June 7. Available at https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/7213.
16. ↵
    1. Faccioli, M.,
    2. M. Czajkowski,
    3. K. Glenk, and
    4. J. Martin-Ortega

    . 2020. “Environmental Attitudes and Place Identity as Determinants of Preferences for Ecosystem Services.” Ecological Economics 174: 106600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106600.

    OpenUrl
17. ↵
    1. Festinger, L.

    1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row Peterson.
18. ↵
    1. Ferraro, P. J., and
    2. P. Shukla

    . 2020. “Feature: Is a Replicability Crisis on the Horizon for Environmental and Resource Economics?” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 14 (2): 339–51.

    OpenUrl
19. ↵
    1. Greene, W. H., and
    2. D. A. Hensher

    . 2010. Modeling Ordered Choices: A Primer. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20. ↵
    1. Hanemann, W. M.

    1984. “Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66 (3): 332–41.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
21. ↵
    1. Herriges, J.,
    2. C. Kling,
    3. C. C. Liu, and
    4. J. Tobias

    . 2010. “What Are the Consequences of Consequentiality?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 59 (1): 67–81.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
22. ↵
    1. Johnston, R. J.,
    2. K. J. Boyle,
    3. W. Adamowicz,
    4. J. Bennett,
    5. R. Brouwer,
    6. T. A. Cameron,
    7. W. M. Hanemann

    , et al. 2017. “Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies.” Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 4 (2): 319–405.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
23. ↵
    1. Liebe, U.,
    2. C. Hundeshagen,
    3. H. Beyer, and
    4. S. von Cramon-Taubadel

    . 2016. “Context Effects and the Temporal Stability of Stated Preferences.” Social Science Research 60: 135–47.

    OpenUrl
24. ↵
    1. Lloyd-Smith, P.,
    2. W. Adamowicz, and
    3. D. Dupont

    . 2019. “Incorporating Stated Consequentiality Questions in Stated Preference Research.” Land Economics 95 (3): 293–306. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.95.3.293.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
25. ↵
    1. Mahieu, P. A.,
    2. H. Andersson,
    3. O. Beaumais,
    4. R. Crastes dit Sourd,
    5. S. Hess, and
    6. F. C. Wolff

    . 2017. “Stated Preferences: A Unique Database Composed of 1657 Recent Published Articles in Journals Related to Agriculture, Environment, or Health.” Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies 98 (3): 201–20.

    OpenUrl
26. ↵
    1. Maldonado-Hinarejos, R.,
    2. A. Sivakumar, and
    3. J. W. Polak

    . 2014. “Exploring the Role of Individual Attitudes and Perceptions in Predicting the Demand for Cycling: A Hybrid Choice Modelling Approach.” Transportation 41 (6): 1287–1304.

    OpenUrl
27. ↵
    1. McFadden, D.

    1974. “Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior.” In Frontiers in Econometrics, edited By P. Zarembka, 105–42. New York: Academic Press.
28. ↵
    1. McFarland, S. G.

    1981. “Effects of Question Order on Survey Responses.” Public Opinion Quarterly 45 (2): 208–15.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
29. ↵
    1. Menegaki, A. N.,
    2. S. B. Olsen, and
    3. K. P. Tsagarakis

    . 2016. “Towards a Common Standard: A Reporting Checklist for Web-Based Stated Preference Valuation Surveys and a Critique for Mode Surveys.” Journal of Choice Modelling 18: 18–50.

    OpenUrl
30. ↵
    1. Morgan, O. A.,
    2. W. L. Huth, and
    3. P. Hindsley

    . 2018. “Examining the Perceptions and Effects of Survey Consequentiality across Population Subgroups.” Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis 9 (2): 305–22.

    OpenUrl
31. ↵
    1. Oehlmann, M., and
    2. J. Meyerhoff

    . 2017. “Stated Preferences towards Renewable Energy Alternatives in Germany: Do the Consequentiality of the Survey and Trust in Institutions Matter?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy 6 (1): 1–16.

    OpenUrl
32. ↵
    1. Pakalniete, K.,
    2. J. Aigars,
    3. M. Czajkowski,
    4. S. Strake,
    5. E. Zawojska, and
    6. N. Hanley

    . 2017. “Understanding the Distribution of Economic Benefits from Improving Coastal and Marine Ecosystems.” Science of the Total Environment 584: 29–40.

    OpenUrl
33. ↵
    1. Penn, J. M., and
    2. W. Hu

    . 2018. “Understanding Hypothetical Bias: An Enhanced Meta-analysis.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 100 (4): 1186–1206.

    OpenUrl
34. ↵
    1. Pouta, E.

    2004. “Attitude and Belief Questions as a Source of Context Effect in a Contingent Valuation Survey.” Journal of Economic Psychology 25 (2): 229–42.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
35. ↵
    1. Reips, U.-D.

    2002. “Context Effects in Web Surveys.” In Online Social Sciences, edited by B. Batinic, U.-D. Reips, and M. Bosnjak, 69–80. Seattle, WA: Hogrefe and Huber.
36. ↵
    1. Salak, B.,
    2. K. Lindberg,
    3. F. Kienast, and
    4. M. Hunziker

    . 2021. “How Landscape-Technology Fit Affects Public Evaluations of Renewable Energy Infrastructure Scenarios: A Hybrid Choice Model.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 143: 110896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110896.

    OpenUrl
37. ↵
    1. Scarpa, R.,
    2. M. Thiene, and
    3. K. Train

    . 2008. “Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90 (4): 994–1010.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
38. ↵
    1. Schuman, H.,
    2. S. Presser, and
    3. J. Ludwig

    . 1981. “Context Effects on Survey Responses to Questions about Abortion.” Public Opinion Quarterly 45 (2): 216–23.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
39. ↵
    1. Schwarz, N.

    1999. “Self-Reports: How the Questions Shape the Answers.” American Psychologist 54: 93–105.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
40. ↵
    1. Tourangeau, R.,
    2. S. Lessler, and
    3. W. Salter

    . 1986. Cognitive Aspects of Questionnaire Design: Pan C Report. Chicago, IL: NORC.
41. ↵
    1. Tourangeau, R., and
    2. K. A. Rasinski

    . 1988. “Cognitive Processes Underlying Context Effects in Attitude Measurement.” Psychological Bulletin 103: 299–314.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
42. ↵
    1. Tourangeau, R.,
    2. L. J. Rips, and
    3. K. Rasinski

    . 2000. The Psychology of Survey Response. New York: Cambridge University Press.
43. ↵
    1. Train, K. E.

    2009. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
44. ↵
    1. Train, K., and
    2. M. Weeks

    . 2005. “Discrete Choice Models in Preference Space and Willingness-to-Pay Space.” In Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics, edited by R. Scarpa and A. Alberini, 1–16. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
45. ↵
    1. Tversky, A., and
    2. D. Kahneman

    . 1986. “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions.” Journal of Business 59: 25–278.

    OpenUrl
46. ↵
    1. Van de Walle, S., and
    2. G. G. Van Ryzin

    . 2011. “The Order of Questions in a Survey on Citizen Satisfaction with Public Services: Lessons from a Split-Ballot Experiment.” Public Administration 89 (4): 1436–50.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
47. ↵
    1. Vésteinsdóttir, V.,
    2. A. Joinson,
    3. U.-D. Reips,
    4. H. B. Danielsdottir,
    5. E. A. Thorarinsdottir, and
    6. F. Thorsdottir

    . 2019. “Questions on Honest Responding.” Behavior Research Methods 51 (2): 811–25.

    OpenUrl
48. ↵
    1. Vossler, C. A.,
    2. M. Doyon, and
    3. D. Rondeau

    . 2012. “Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments.” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 4 (4): 145–71.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
49. ↵
    1. Vossler, C. A., and
    2. J. S. Holladay

    . 2018. “Alternative Value Elicitation Formats in Contingent Valuation: Mechanism Design and Convergent Validity.” Journal of Public Economics 165: 133–45.

    OpenUrl
50. ↵
    1. Vossler, C. A., and
    2. S. B. Watson

    . 2013. “Understanding the Consequences of Consequentiality: Testing the Validity of Stated Preferences in the Field.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 86: 137–47.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
51. ↵
    1. Welling, M.,
    2. J. Sagebiel, and
    3. J. Rommel

    . 2023. “Information Processing in Stated Preference Surveys: A Case Study on Urban Gardens.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 119: 102798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2023.102798.

    OpenUrl
52. ↵
    1. Welling, M.,
    2. E. Zawojska, and
    3. J. Sagebiel

    . 2022. “Information, Consequentiality and Credibility in Stated Preference Surveys: A Choice Experiment on Climate Adaptation.” Environmental and Resource Economics 82 (1): 257–83.

    OpenUrl
53. ↵
    1. Willits, F. K., and
    2. B. Ke

    . 1995. “Part-Whole Question Order Effects: Views of Rurality.” Public Opinion Quarterly 59 (3): 392–403.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
54. ↵
    1. Zawojska, E.,
    2. A. Bartczak, and
    3. M. Czajkowski

    . 2019. “Disentangling the Effects of Policy and Payment Consequentiality and Risk Attitudes on Stated Preferences.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 93: 63–84.

    OpenUrl