Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity

References

1. 1. Adamowicz Wiktor,
   2. Boxall Peter,
   3. Williams Michael,
   4. Louviere Jordan

   . 1998. “Stated Preference Approaches to Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments versus Contingent Valuation”. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80 (1): 64–75.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
2. 1. Campbell Danny,
   2. Hutchinson W. George,
   3. Scarpa Riccardo

   . 2008. “Incorporating Discontinuous Preferences into the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments”. Environmental and Resource Economics 41 (3): 401–17.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
3. 1. DeShazo J. R.,
   2. Fermo German

   . 2002. “Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effect of Complexity on Choice Consistency”. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44 (1): 123–43.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
4. 1. Ferrini Silvia,
   2. Scarpa Riccardo

   . 2007. “Designs with A Priori Information for Nonmarket Valuation with Choice Experiments: A Monte Carlo Study”. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 53 (3): 342–63.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
5. 1. Greene William H.

   2007. NLOGIT Version 4.0. Reference Guide. New York: Econometric Software, Inc.
6. 1. Hanley Nick,
   2. Wright Robert E.,
   3. Alvarez-Farizo Begona

   . 2006. “Estimating the Economic Value of Improvements in River Ecology Using Choice Experiments: An Application to the Water Framework Directive”. Journal of Environmental Management 78 (2): 183–93.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. 1. Hensher David A.

   2007. “Attribute Processing in Choice Experiments and Implications on Willingness to Pay.” In Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Stated Choice Studies, ed. Kanninen Barbara J. Dordrecht: Springer.
8. 1. Hensher David A.,
   2. Greene William H.

   2003. “The Mixed Logit Model: The State of Practice”. Transportation 30 (2): 133–76.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
9. 1. Hensher David A.,
   2. Jones Stewart,
   3. Greene William H.

   2007. “An Error Component Logit Analysis of Corporate Bankruptcy and Insolvency Risk in Australia”. The Economic Record 83 (260): 86–103.

   OpenUrl
10. 1. Johnson F. Reed,
    2. Kanninen Barbara,
    3. Bingham Matthew,
    4. Özdemir Semra

    . 2007. “Experimental Design for Stated Choice Studies.” In Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Stated Choice Studies, ed. Kanninen Barbara J. Dordrecht: Springer.
11. 1. Jorgensen Bradley S.,
    2. Syme Geoffrey J.

    2000. “Protest Response and Willingness to Pay: Attitude toward Paying for Stormwater Pollution Abatement”. Ecological Economics 33 (2): 251–65.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
12. 1. Kahneman Daniel,
    2. Knetsch Jack L.,
    3. Thaler Richard H.

    1991. “The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion and Status Quo Bias”. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5 (1): 193–206.

    OpenUrl
13. 1. Krinsky Itzhak,
    2. Leslie Robb A.

    1986. “On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities”. The Review of Economics and Statistics 68 (4): 715–19.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
14. 1. Kuhfeld Warren F.

    2005. Marketing Research Methods in SAS. Experimental Design, Choice, Conjoint, and Graphical Techniques. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.
15. 1. Lehtonen Emmi,
    2. Kuuluvainen Jari,
    3. Pouta Eija,
    4. Rekola Mika,
    5. Li Chuan-Zhong

    . 2003. “Non-Market Benefits of Forest Conservation in Southern Finland”. Environmental Science and Policy 6 (3): 195–204.

    OpenUrl
16. 1. Lusk Jayson L.,
    2. Bailey Norwood F.

    2005. “Effect of Experimental Design on Choice-Based Conjoint Valuation Estimates”. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87 (3): 771–85.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
17. 1. Mandler Michael

    . 2004. “Status Quo Maintenance Reconsidered: Changing or Incomplete Preferences?” The Economic Journal 114 (499): F518–F535.

    OpenUrl
18. 1. Meyerhoff Jürgen,
    2. Liebe Ulf

    . 2006. “Protest Beliefs in Contingent Valuation: Explaining Their Motivation”. Ecological Economics 57 (3): 583–94.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
19. 1. Meyerhoff Jürgen,
    2. Liebe Ulf

    . 2008. “Do Protest Responses to a Contingent Valuation Question and a Choice Experiment Differ?” Environmental and Resource Economics 39 (4): 433–46.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
20. 1. Meyerhoff Jürgen,
    2. Liebe Ulf,
    3. Hartje V.

    2009. “Benefits of Biodiversity Enhancement due to Nature-Oriented Silviculture: Evidence from Two Choice Experiments in Germany”. Journal of Forest Economics 15 (1–2): 37–58.

    OpenUrl
21. 1. Moon Amanda

    . 2004. “Assessing the Impacts of Complexity in Stated Preference Methods.” M.Sc. thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton.
22. 1. Niedersächsische Landesregierung

    . 1991. Niedersächsisches Programm zur langfristigen ökologischen Waldentwicklung in den Landesforsten [The Lower Saxony Program for Long-Term Development in State Forests]. Hannover: Eigenverlag.
23. 1. Rabin Matthew

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

    OpenUrlWeb of Science
24. 1. Samuelson William,
    2. Zeckhauser Richard J.

    1988. “Status Quo Bias in Decision Making”. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1 (1): 7–59.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
25. 1. Scarpa Riccardo,
    2. Campbell Danny,
    3. Hutchinson W. George

    . 2007. “Benefit Estimates for Landscape Improvements: Sequential Bayesian Design and Respondents’ Rationality in a Choice Experiment”. Land Economics 83 (4): 617–34.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
26. 1. Scarpa,
    2. Riccardo,
    3. Ferrini Silvia,
    4. Willis Kenneth

    . 2005. “Performance of Error Component Models for Status-Quo Effects in Choice Experiments.” In Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics, ed. Scarpa Riccardo, Alberini Anna. Dordrecht: Springer.
27. 1. Scarpa Riccardo,
    2. Willis Kenneth,
    3. Acutt Melinda

    . 2007. “Valuing Externalities from Water Supply: Status Quo, Choice Complexity and Individual Random Effects in Panel Kernel Logit Analysis of Choice Experiments”. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50 (4): 449–66.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
28. 1. Train Kenneth E.

    2003. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29. 1. von Haefen Roger H.,
    2. Matthew Massey D.,
    3. Adamowicz Wiktor L.

    2005. “Serial Nonparticipation in Repeated Discrete Choice Models”. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87 (4): 1061–76.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text