Decoy Effects in Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation: Asymmetric Dominance

References

1. 1. Bateman I. J.,
   2. Cole M.,
   3. Cooper P.,
   4. Georgiou S.,
   5. Hadley D.,
   6. Poe G. L.

   . 2004. “On Visible Choice Sets and Scope Sensitivity”. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 47(1): 71–93.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
2. 1. Bateman I. J.,
   2. Langford I. H.,
   3. Turner R. K.,
   4. Willis K. G.,
   5. Garrod G. D.

   . 1995. “Elicitation and Truncation Effects in Contingent Valuation Studies”. Ecological Economics 12(2): 161–79.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
3. 1. Bateman I.,
   2. Munro A.,
   3. Rhodes B.,
   4. Starmer C.,
   5. Sugden R.

   . 1997. “Does Part-Whole Bias Exist? An Experimental Investigation”. Economic Journal 107(441): 322–32.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
4. 1. Burton A. C.,
   2. Carson K. S.,
   3. Chilton S. M.,
   4. Hutchinson W. G.

   . 2007. “Resolving Questions about Bias in Real and Hypothetical Referenda”. Environmental and Resource Economics 38(4): 513–25.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
5. 1. Cameron T. A.,
   2. Poe G. L.,
   3. Ethier R.,
   4. Schulze W. D.

   . 2002. “Alternative Nonmarket Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44(3): 391–425.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
6. 1. Champ P. A.,
   2. Boyle K.,
   3. Brown T. C.

   , eds. 2003. A Primer on Non-market Valuation: The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Services. Vol. 3. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.
7. 1. Cubitt R. P.,
   2. Munro A.,
   3. Starmer C.

   . 2004. “Preference Reversal: An Experimental Investigation of Economic and Psychological Hypotheses”. Economic Journal 114(497): 709–26.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
8. 1. Cummings R. G.,
   2. Elliott S.,
   3. Harrison G. W.,
   4. Murphy J.

   . 1997. “Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible?” Journal of Political Economy 105(3): 609–21.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
9. 1. DeShazo J. R.,
   2. Fermo G.

   . 2002. “Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency”. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44: 123–43.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
10. 1. Diamond P. A.,
    2. Hausman J. A.

    . 1994. “Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better Than No Number?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(1): 45–64.

    OpenUrlPubMed
11. 1. Doyle J. R.,
    2. O’Connor D. J.,
    3. Reynolds G. M.,
    4. Bottomley P. A.

    . 1999. “The Robustness of the Asymmetrically Dominated Effect: Buying Frames, Phantom Alternatives, and In-Store Purchases”. Psychology and Marketing 16(3): 225–43.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
12. 1. Green P. E.,
    2. Wind Y.

    . 1973. Multi-Attribute Surveys in Marketing: A Measurement Approach. Orlando, Fla.: Dryden Press.
13. 1. Greene W. H.

    2002. LIMDEP Version 8. Econometric Software Inc.
14. 1. Heberlein T. A.,
    2. Wilson M. A.,
    3. Bishop R. C.,
    4. Schaeffer N. C.

    . 2005. “Rethinking the Scope Test as a Criterion for Validity in Contingent Valuation”. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 50(1): 1–22.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
15. 1. Heckman J.

    1976. “The Commons Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation, Sample Selection, and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator of Such Models”. Annals of Economics and Social Measurement 5: 475–92.

    OpenUrl
16. 1. Herne K.

    1997. “Decoy Alternatives in Policy Choices: Asymmetric Domination and Compromise Effects”. European Journal of Political Economics 13(3): 575–89.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
17. 1. Herne K.

    1999. “The Effects of Decoy Gambles on Individual Choice”. Experimental Economics 2: 31–40.

    OpenUrl
18. 1. Highhouse S.

    1996. “Context-Dependent Selection: The Effects of Decoy and Phantom Job Candidates”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 13: 575–89.

    OpenUrl
19. 1. Huber J.,
    2. Puto C.

    . 1983. “Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Illustrating Attraction and Substitution Effects”. Journal of Conumer Research 10(1): 31–44.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
20. 1. Huber J.,
    2. Payne J. W.,
    3. Puto C.

    . 1982. “Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis”. Journal of Consumer Research 9(1): 90–98.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
21. 1. Irwin J. R.,
    2. Slovic P.,
    3. Lichtenstein S.,
    4. McClelland G. H.

    . 1993. “Preference Reversals and the Measurement of Environmental Values”. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 6(1): 5–18.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
22. 1. Lehman D. R.,
    2. Pan Y.

    . 1994. “Context Effect, New Brand Entry and Consideration Sets”. Journal of Marketing Research 31(3): 364–74.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
23. 1. Lichtenstein S.,
    2. Slovic P.

    . 1971. “Reversals of Preference Between Bids and Choices in Gambling Decisions”. Journal of Experimental Psychology 89(1): 46–55.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
24. 1. Loomis J.,
    2. Brown T.,
    3. Lucero B.,
    4. Peterson G.

    . 1997. “Evaluating the Validity of the Dichotomous Choice Question Format in Contingent Valuation”. Environmental and Resource Economics 10(2): 109–23.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
25. 1. Maddala G. S.

    1983. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
26. 1. Malhotra N. K.

    1982. “Structural Reliability and Stability of Nonmetric Conjoint Analysis”. Journal of Marketing Research 19(2): 199–207.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
27. 1. Pan Y.,
    2. O’Curry S.,
    3. Pitts R.

    . 1995. “The Attraction Effect and Political Choice in Two Elections”. Journal of Conumer Psychology 4(1): 85–101.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
28. 1. Rabin M.

    1998. “Psychology and Economics”. Journal of Economic Literature 36(1): 11–46.

    OpenUrlWeb of Science
29. 1. Ratneshwar S.,
    2. Shocker A. D.,
    3. Stewart D. W.

    . 1987. “Toward Understanding the Attraction Effect: The Implications of Product Stimulus Meaningfulness and Familiarity,” Journal of Consumer Research 13(4): 520–33.

    OpenUrl
30. 1. Sen A. K.

    1982. Choice, Welfare and Measurement. Oxford, U.K.: Basil Blackwell.
31. 1. Shafir S.,
    2. Waite T. A.,
    3. Smith B. H.

    . 2002. “Context-Dependent Violations of Rational Choice in Honeybees (Apis Mellilera) and Grey Jays (Perisoreus Canadensis)”. Behavior Ecology and Sociobiology 51(2): 186–87.

    OpenUrl
32. 1. Simonson I.

    1989. “Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects”. Journal of Consumer Research 16(2): 158–74.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
33. 1. Simonson I.,
    2. Tversky A.

    . 1992. “Choice in Context, Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion”. Journal of Marketing Research 29(3): 281–95.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
34. 1. Taylor L. O.,
    2. McKee M.,
    3. Laury S. K.,
    4. Cummings R. G.

    . 2001. “Induced Value Tests of the Referendum Voting Mechanism”. Economic Letters 71(1): 61–66.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
35. 1. Tversky A.

    1972. “Elimination by Aspects: A Theory of Choice”. Psychological Review 79: 281–99.

    OpenUrlPubMed
36. 1. Tversky A.,
    2. Simonson I.

    . 1993. “Context Dependent Preferences: The Relative Advantage Model”. Management Science 39(10): 1179–89.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
37. 1. Wedell D. H.

    1991. “Distinguishing Among Models of Contextually Induced Preference Reversals”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 17(4): 767–78.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science