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

References

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

   (2018). Equity and the willingness to pay for green electricity in Germany. Nature Energy, 3(10), 876–881.

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

   (2022). Linking health worker motivation with their stated job preferences: A hybrid choice analysis in Ethiopia. Social Science and Medicine, 307, 115151.

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

   (2000). Studying the mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research. In: Reis, H., and Judd, C. (Eds.) Handbook of Research Methods in Social Psychology (pp. 253–285). New York, NY: 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. Abate, T. G.,
   3. Aanesen, M., and
   4. Zawojska, E.

   (2021). Payment and policy consequentiality in dichotomous choice contingent valuation: Examining endogeneity of self-reported statements. Land Economics, 97(2), 407–424.

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

   (2022). Endogeneity and measurement bias of the indicator variables in hybrid choice models: A Monte Carlo investigation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 83, 605–629.

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

   (2019). Endogeneity of self-reported consequentiality in stated preference studies. International Choice Modelling Conference, Kobe, Japan, August 19-21.
8. 1. Carson, R. T., and
   2. Groves, T.

   (2007). Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics, 37(1), 181–210.

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

   (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. Prelec, D.,
    3. Riley, B., and
    4. Tereick, B.

    (2019). Honesty via choice-matching. American Economic Review: Insights, 1(2), 179–92.

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

    (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. Bateman, I. J.,
    3. Carson, R. T.,
    4. Dupont, D.,
    5. Louviere, J. J.,
    6. Morimoto, S.,
    7. Scarpa, R., and
    8. Wang, P.

    (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. Pope, D.

    (2022). Stability of experimental results: Forecasts and evidence. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 14(3), 889–925.

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

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

    (2021). Trust in institutions and consequentiality perceptions in a stated preference survey. AEA RCT Registry. June 7.
16. 1. Faccioli, M.,
    2. Czajkowski, M.,
    3. Glenk, K., and
    4. Martin-Ortega, J.

    (2020). Environmental attitudes and place identity as determinants of preferences for ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 174, 106600.

    OpenUrl
17. 1. Festinger, L.

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

    (2020). Feature—Is a Replicability Crisis on the Horizon for Environmental and Resource Economics?. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 14(2), 339–351.

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

    (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), 332–341.

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

    (2010). What are the consequences of consequentiality? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 59(1), 67–81.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
22. 1. Johnston, R. J.,
    2. Boyle, K. J.,
    3. Adamowicz, W.,
    4. Bennett, J.,
    5. Brouwer, R.,
    6. Cameron, T. A.,
    7. Hanemann, W. M.,
    8. Hanley, N.,
    9. Ryan, M.,
    10. Scarpa, R.,
    11. Tourangeau, R., and
    12. Vossler, C. A.

    (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. Hundeshagen, C.,
    3. Beyer, H., and
    4. von Cramon-Taubadel, S.

    (2016). Context effects and the temporal stability of stated preferences. Social Science Research, 60, 135–147.

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

    , (2019). Incorporating stated consequentiality questions in stated preference research. Land Economics, 95(3), 293–306.

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

    (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), 201–220.

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

    (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: Zarembka, P. (Ed.) Frontiers in Econometrics (pp. 105–142). New York, NY: Academic Press.
28. 1. McFarland, S. G.

    (1981). Effects of question order on survey responses. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45(2), 208–215.

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

    (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. Huth, W. L., and
    3. Hindsley, P.

    (2018). Examining the perceptions and effects of survey consequentiality across population subgroups. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 9(2), 305–322.

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

    (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. Aigars, J.,
    3. Czajkowski, M.,
    4. Strake, S.,
    5. Zawojska, E., and
    6. Hanley, N.

    (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. Hu, W.

    (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), 229–242.

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

    (2002). Context effects in web surveys. In: Batinic, B., Reips, U.-D., and Bosnjak, M. (Eds.) Online Social Sciences (pp. 69–80). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe and Huber.
36. 1. Salak, B.,
    2. Lindberg, K.,
    3. Kienast, F., and
    4. Hunziker, M.

    (2021). How landscape-technology fit affects public evaluations of renewable energy infrastructure scenarios. A hybrid choice model. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 143, 110896.

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

    (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. Presser, S., and
    3. Ludwig, J.

    (1981). Context effects on survey responses to questions about abortion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45(2), 216–223.

    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. Lessler, 5., and
    3. Salter, W.

    (1986). Cognitive aspects of questionnaire design: Pan C report. Chicago, IL: NORC.
41. 1. Tourangeau, R., and
    2. Rasinski, K. A.

    (1988). Cognitive processes underlying context effects in attitude measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 299–314.

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

    (2000). The Psychology of Survey Response. New York, NY: 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. Weeks, M.

    (2005). Discrete choice models in preference space and willingness-to-pay space. In: Scarpa, R., and Alberini, A. (Eds.) Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics (pp. 1–16). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
45. 1. Tversky, A., and
    2. Kahneman, D.

    (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business, 59, 25–278.

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

    (2011). The order of questions in a survey on citizen satisfaction with public services: Lessons from a split-ballot experiment. Public Administration, 89(4), 1436–1450.

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

    (2019). Questions on honest responding. Behavior Research Methods, 51(2), 811–825.

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

    (2012). Truth in consequentiality: Theory and field evidence on discrete choice experiments. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 4(4), 145–171.

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

    (2018). Alternative value elicitation formats in contingent valuation: Mechanism design and convergent validity. Journal of Public Economics, 165, 133–145.

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

    (2013). Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: Testing the validity of stated preferences in the field. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 86, 137–147.

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

    (2023). Information processing in stated preference surveys: A case study on urban gardens. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 119, 102798.

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

    (2022). Information, consequentiality and credibility in stated preference surveys: A choice experiment on climate adaptation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 82(1), 257–283.

    OpenUrl
53. 1. Zawojska, E.,
    2. Bartczak, A., and
    3. Czajkowski, M.

    (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