How Does the Cost Vector Affect Payment Consequentiality in a Binary Choice Contingent Valuation Survey?

References

1. 1. Albers, W.

   , 1997. Foundations of a theory of prominence in the decimal system. Part I: Numerical response as a process, exactness, scales, and structure of scales (No. 265). Center for Mathematical Economics. Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University. University of Bielefeld.
2. 1. Albers, W.

   , 1998. A model of the concession behavior in the sequence of offers of the German electronic stock exchange trading market (IBIS) based on the prominence structure of the bid ask spread. Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University. University of Bielefeld.
3. 1. Albers, W.

   , 2001. Prominence theory as a tool to model boundedly rational decisions, in: Gigerenze, G., Selten, R. (Ed.), 2001. Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, US, pp. 297–317.
4. 1. Börger, T.,
   2. Abate, T.,
   3. Aanesen, M.,
   4. Zawojska, E.

   , 2021. Payment and policy consequentiality in dichotomous choice contingent valuation: Experimental design effects on selfreported perceptions. Land Econ. 97, 407–424.

   OpenUrl
5. 1. Carson, R.T.,
   2. Groves, T.

   , 2007. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ. Resour. Econ. 37, 181–210.

   OpenUrl
6. 1. Champ, P.A.,
   2. Flores, N.E.,
   3. Brown, T.C.,
   4. Chivers, J.

   , 2002. Contingent valuation and incentives. Land Econ. 78, 591–604.

   OpenUrl
7. 1. Flores, N.E.,
   2. Strong, A.

   , 2007. Cost credibility and the stated preference analysis of public goods. Resour. Energy Econ. 29, 195–205.

   OpenUrl
8. 1. Glenk, K.,
   2. Meyerhoff, J.,
   3. Akaichi, F.,
   4. Martin-Ortega, J.

   2019. Revisiting cost vector effects in discrete choice experiments. Resour. Energy Econ. 57, 135–155.

   OpenUrl
9. 1. Glenk, K.,
   2. Meyerhoff, J.,
   3. Colombo, S.,
   4. Faccioli, M.

   , 2023. Are willingness to pay estimates derived from discrete choice experiments plausible? An investigation of overshooting using a simple criterion for face validity. Working Paper.
10. 1. Groothuis, P.A.,
    2. Mohr, T.M.,
    3. Whitehead, J.C.,
    4. Cockerill, K.

    , 2017. Endogenous consequentiality in stated preference referendum data: the influence of the randomly assigned tax amount. Land Econ. 93, 258–268.

    OpenUrl
11. 1. Guerrini, A.,
    2. Vigolo, V.,
    3. Romano, G.,
    4. Testa, F.

    , 2018. Levers supporting tariff growth for water services: evidence from a contingent valuation analysis. J. Environ. Manage. 207, 23–31.

    OpenUrl
12. 1. Heubner, L.,
    2. Cipora K.,
    3. Soltanlou M.,
    4. Schlenker M.-L.,
    5. Lipowska K.,
    6. Göbel S. M.,
    7. Domahs F.,
    8. Haman M.,
    9. Nuerk H.

    , 2018. A mental odd-even continuum account: Some numbers may be “more odd” than others and some numbers may be “more even” than others. Front. Psychol. 9, 1–16.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
13. 1. Jin, S.-J.,
    2. Lim, S.-Y.,
    3. Yoo, S.-H.

    , 2018. The public value of building large oil spill response vessels in Korea. Mar. Policy 88, 242–247.

    OpenUrl
14. 1. Lloyd-Smith, P.,
    2. Adamowicz, W.

    , 2018. Can stated measures of willingness-to-accept be valid? Evidence from laboratory experiments. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 91, 133–149.

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

    2019. Incorporating Stated Consequentiality Questions in Stated Preference Research. Land Econ. 95, 293–306.

    OpenUrl
16. 1. Mahieu, P.-A.,
    2. Andersson, H.,
    3. Beaumais, O.,
    4. Crastes dit Sourd, R.,
    5. Hess, S.,
    6. Wolff, F.-C.

    , 2017. Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health. Rev. Agric. Food Environ. Stud. 98, 201–220.

    OpenUrl
17. 1. Muljadi, E.,
    2. Yu, Y. H.

    , 2015. Review of marine hydrokinetic power generation and power plant. Electr. Power Compon. Syst. 43, 1422–1433.

    OpenUrl
18. 1. Petrowsky, H. M.,
    2. Schweinsberg, M.,
    3. Seitz, L.,
    4. Funk, B.,
    5. Loschelder, D. D.

    , 2023. Deal or no deal? How round vs precise percentage offers and price-ending mimicry affect impasse risk in over 25 million eBay negotiations. J. Econ. Psychol., 94, 102584.

    OpenUrl
19. 1. Rheinberger C.,
    2. Schläpfer F.

    , 2015. It’s the cost credibility, stupid! A comment on “consequentiality: A theoretical and experimental exploration of a single binary choice. TSE working paper.
20. 1. Saengsupavanich, C.,
    2. Seenprachawong, U.,
    3. Gallardo, W.G.,
    4. Shivakoti, G.P.

    , 2008. Port-induced erosion prediction and valuation of a local recreational beach. Ecol. Econ. 67, 93–103.

    OpenUrl
21. 1. Schultze, T.,
    2. Loschelder, D. D.

    , 2021. How numeric advice precision affects advice taking. J. Behav. Decis, 34, 303–310.

    OpenUrl
22. 1. Smith GS,
    2. Day BH,
    3. Bateman IJ.

    , 2019. Preference uncertainty as an explanation of anomalies in contingent valuation: coastal management in the UK. Reg. Environ. Change. 19, 2203–15.

    OpenUrl
23. 1. Yan, D.,
    2. Pena-Marin, J.

    , 2017. Round off the bargaining: The effects of offer roundness on willingness to accept. J. Consum. Res. 44, 381–395.

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

    , 2019. Disentangling the effects of policy and payment consequentiality and risk attitudes on stated preferences. J Environ Econ Manage. 93, 63–84.

    OpenUrl