Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Design of Stated Preference Surveys: Is There More to Learn from Behavioral Economics?

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We discuss the design of stated preference (SP) surveys in light of findings in behavioral economics such as context dependence of preferences, learning, and differences between revealed and normative preferences. More specifically, we discuss four different areas: (1) revealed and normative preferences, (2) learning and constructed preferences, (3) context dependence, and (4) hypothetical bias. We argue that SP methods would benefit from adapting to some of the findings in behavioral economics, but also that behavioral economics may gain insights from studying SP methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alpizar F, Carlsson F, Johansson-Stenman O (2008a) Anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity: evidence from voluntary contributions to a national park in Costa Rica. J Public Econ 92: 1047–1060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alpizar F, Carlsson F, Johansson-Stenman O (2008b) Does context matter more for hypothetical than for actual contributions. Evidence from a natural field experiment. Exp Econ 11: 299–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni J, Petrie R (2004) Public good experiments without confidentiality: a glimpse into fund-raising. J Public Econ 88: 1605–1623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ariely D, Loewenstein G, Prelec D (2008) Coherent arbitrariness: stable demand curves without stable preferences, Working Paper Massachusetts Institute of Technology

  • Bardsley N (2008) Dictator game giving: altruism or artifact. Exp Econ 11: 122–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardsley N, Sausgruber R (2005) Conformity and reciprocity in public good provision. J Econ Psychol 26: 664–681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman I, Burgess D, Hutchinson G, Matthews D (2008) Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness. J Environ Econ Manag 55: 127–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman I, Day B, Jones A, Jude S (2009) Reducing gain–loss asymmetry: a virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change. J Environ Econ Manag 58: 106–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman I, Mawby J (2004) First impressions count: interviewer appearance and information effects in stated preference studies. Ecol Econ 49: 47–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman I, Munro A, Rhodes B, Starmer C, Sugden R (1997) A test of the theory of reference-dependent preferences. Q J Econ 112: 479–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand M, Mullainathan S (2001) Do people mean what they say. Implications for subjective survey data. Am Econ Rev Papers Proc 91: 67–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Beshears J, Choi J, Laibson D, Madrian B (2008) How are preferences revealed? Working paper

  • Camerer C, Issacharoff S, Loewenstein G, O’Donoghue T, Rabin M (2003) Regulation for conservatives: behavioral economics and the case for ‘asymmetric paternalism’. Univ Pennsylvania Law Rev 151: 1211–1254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson F, Garcia J, Löfgren Å (2008) Conformity and the demand of environmental goods, Working papers in economics no. 286, Department of Economics, University of Gothenburg

  • Carlsson F, Martinsson P (2001) Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments. J Environ Econ Manag 41: 179–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson F, Martinsson P, Akay A (2009) The effect of power outages and cheap talk on willingness to pay to reduce outages, IZA Discussion paper series No. 4307

  • Carson R, Mitchell R, Hanemann M, Kopp R, Presser S, Ruud PA (2003) Contingent valuation and lost passive use: damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environ Resour Econ 25: 257–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang JB, Lusk J, Norwood FB (2009) How closely do hypothetical surveys and laboratory experiments predict field behavior. Am J Agric Econ 91: 518–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi J, Laibson D, Madrian B, Metrick A (2003) Optimal defaults. Am Econ Rev 93, Papers and Proceedings, pp 180–185

  • Choi J, Laibson D, Madrian BC (2004) Plan design and 401(k) savings outcomes. Nat Tax J 57: 275–298

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook J, Whittington D, Canh D, Johnson FR, Nyamete A (2007) Reliability of stated preferences for cholera and typhoid vaccines with time to think in Hue Vietnam. Econ Inq 45: 100–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corso P, Hammitt J, Graham J (2002) Valuing mortality-risk reduction: using visual aids to improve the validity of contingent valuation. J Risk Uncertain 23: 165–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings R, Harrison G, Rutström E (1995) Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: is the dichotomous choice approach incentive—compatible. Am Econ Rev 85: 260–266

    Google Scholar 

  • de Palma A, GM Myers, Papageorgiou YY (1995) Rational choice under an imperfect ability to choose. Am Econ Rev 84: 419–440

    Google Scholar 

  • De Shazo JR, Fermo G (2002) Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency. J Environ Econ Manag 44: 123–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiore S, Harrison G, Hughes C, Rutström E (2009) Virtual experiments and environmental policy. J Environ Econ Manag 57: 65–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey B, Luechinger S, Stutzer A (2004) Valuing public goods: the life satisfaction approach. CESifo working paper series no. 1158

  • Frey B, Meier S (2004) Social comparisons and pro-social behavior: testing “conditional cooperation” in a field experiment. Am Econ Rev 94: 1717–1722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey B, Stutzer A (2002) What can economists learn from happiness research. J Econ Lit 40: 402–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frykblom P (1997) Hypothetical question modes and real willingness to pay. J Environ Econ Manag 34: 275–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gneezy U (2005) Deception: the role of consequences. Am Econ Rev 95: 384–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammack J, Brown G (1974) Waterfowl and wetlands: toward bio-economic analysis. John-Hopkins Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann M (1991) Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: how much can they differ. Am Econ Rev 81: 635–647

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann M (1994) Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. J Econ Perspect 8: 19–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann M (1999) The economic theory of WTP and WTA. In: Bateman IJ, Willis KG (eds) Valuing environmental preferences: theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU, and developing countries. Oxford University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Heiner RA (1983) The origin of predictable behavior. Am Econ Rev 73: 560–595

    Google Scholar 

  • Herriges J, Shogren J (1996) Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. J Environ Econ Manag 30: 112–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz J, McConnell K (2002) A review of WTA/WTP studies. J Environ Econ Manag 44: 426–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu W, Adamowicz W, Veeman M (2006) Labeling context and reference point effects in models of food attribute demand. Am J Agric Econ 88: 1034–1049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson-Stenman O, Svedsäter H (2008) Measuring hypothetical bias in choice experiments: the importance of cognitive consistency. B-E J Econ Anal Policy 8, Article 41

  • Johnson R, Mattews W, Bingham M (2000) Evaluating welfare-theoretic consistency in multiple response, stated-preference survey. TER Working Paper T-0003

  • Kahneman D, Knetsch J, Thaler R (1990) Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the coase theorem. J Polit Econ 98: 1325–1348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Sugden R (2005) Experienced utility as a standard of policy evaluation. Environ Resour Econ 32: 161–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Wakker P, Sarin R (1997) Back to Bentham: explorations of experienced utility. Q J Econ 112: 375–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladenburg J, Olsen S (2008) Gender specific starting point bias in choice experiments: evidence from an empirical study. J Environ Econ Manag 56: 275–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laibson D (1997) Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. Q J Econ 112: 443–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landry C, Lange A, List J, Price M, Rupp N (2006) Toward an understanding of the economics of charity: evidence from a field experiment. Q J Econ 121: 747–782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layton D, Brown G (2000) Heterogenous preferences regarding global climate change. Rev Econ Stat 82: 616–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legget C, Kleckner N, Boyle K, Duffield J, Mitchell R (2003) Social desirability bias in contingent valuation surveys administered through in-person interviews. Land Econ 79: 561–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt SD, List JA (2007) What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world. J Econ Perspect 21: 153–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List J (2003) Does market experience eliminate market anomalies. Q J Econ 118: 41–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List JA (2007) On the interpretation of giving in dictator games. J Polit Econ 115: 482–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List J, Berrens R, Bohara A, Kerkvilet J (2004) Examining the role of social isolation on stated preferences. Am Econ Rev 94: 741–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List J, Gallet C (2001) What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values. Environ Resour Econ 20: 241–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein G, Ubel P (2008) Hedonic adaptation and the role of decision experience utility in public policy. J Public Econ 92: 1795–1810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luechinger S (2009) Valuing air quality using the life satisfaction approach. Econ J 119: 482–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusk J, Pruitt J, Norwood B (2006) External validity of a framed field experiment. Econ Lett 93: 285–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusk J, Schroeder TC (2004) Are choice experiments incentive compatible. A test with quality differentiated beefsteaks. Am J Agric Econ 85: 840–856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madrian BC, Shea DF (2001) The power of suggestion: inertia in 401(k) participation and savings behavior. Q J Econ 116: 1149–1187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy J, Allen G, Stevens T, Weatherhead D (2005) A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environ Resour Econ 30: 313–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neill H, Cummings R, Ganderton P, Harrison G, McGuckin T (1994) Hypothetical surveys and real economic commitments. Land Econ 70: 145–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noussair C., Robin S, Ruffieux B (2004) Do consumers really refuse to buy genetically modified food. Econ J 114: 102–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donoghue T, Rabin M (1999) Doing it now or later. Am Econ Rev 89: 103–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plott C (1996) Rational individual behavior in markets and social choice processes: the discovered preference hypothesis. In: Arrow K, Colombatto E, Perleman M, Schmidt C (eds) Rational foundations of economic behavior. Macmillan, London, pp 225–250

    Google Scholar 

  • Rege M, Telle K (2004) The impact of social approval and framing on cooperation in public good situations. J Public Econ 88: 1625–1644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shang J, Croson R (2006) Field experiments in charitable contribution: the impact of social influence on the voluntary provision of public goods. Working Paper

  • Shogren JF, Fox JA, Hayes DJ, Roosen J (1999) Observed for food safety in retail, survey, and auction markets. Am J Agric Econ 81: 1192–1199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shogren J, Taylor L (2008) On behavioral-environmental economics. Rev Environ Econ Policy 2: 26–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soetevent AR (2005) Anonymity in giving in a natural context: an economic field experiment in thirty churches. J Public Econ 89: 2301–2323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugden R (2007) Cost-benefit analysis as market simulation. A new approach to the problem of anomalies in environmental valuation. RFF Discussion Paper 07–28, Resources for the future, Washington, DC

  • Sugden R (2008) Why incoherent preferences do not justify paternalism. Const Polit Econ 19: 226–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein C, Thaler R (2003a) Libertarian paternalism. Am Econ Rev Papers Proc 93(2): 175–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein C, Thaler R (2003b) Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron. Univ Chicago Law Rev 70: 1159–1202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swait J, Adamowicz W (2001) The influence of task complexity on consumer choice: a latent class model of decision strategy switching. J Consumer Res 28:135–148. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/321952

    Google Scholar 

  • Swait J, Adamowicz W, Hanemann M, Diederich A, Krosnick J, Layton D, Provencher W, Schkade D, Tourangeau R (2002) Context dependence and aggregation in disaggregate choice analysis. Market Lett 13: 195–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1991) Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-dependent model. Q J Econ 106: 1039–1061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Simonson I (1993) Context-dependent preferences. Manag Sci 39: 1179–1189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Praag BMS, Baarsma B (2005) Using happiness surveys to value intangibles: the case of airport noise. Econ J 115: 224–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welsch H (2009) Implications of happiness research for environmental economics. Ecol Econ 68: 2735–2742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittington D, Smith VK, Okorafor A, Okore A, Liu JL, McPhail A (1992) Giving respondents time to think in contingent valuation studies: a developing country application. J Environ Econ Manag 22: 205–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg, Box 640, 405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Fredrik Carlsson

Authors
  1. Fredrik Carlsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fredrik Carlsson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carlsson, F. Design of Stated Preference Surveys: Is There More to Learn from Behavioral Economics?. Environ Resource Econ 46, 167–177 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9359-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9359-4

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation