Testing Bid Design Effects in Multiple-Bounded, Contingent-Valuation Questions

2002 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Roach ◽  
Kevin J. Boyle ◽  
Michael Welsh
Keyword(s):  
Contingent Valuation ◽  
Design Effects ◽  
Bid Design

Bid Design Effects in Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation

2004 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 401-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian A. Vossler ◽  
Gregory L. Poe ◽  
P. Welsh ◽  
Robert G. Ethier
Keyword(s):  
Contingent Valuation ◽  
Discrete Choice ◽  
Design Effects ◽  
Bid Design

Budget-Constraint, Temporal, and Question-Ordering Effects in Contingent Valuation Studies

1997 ◽  
Vol 29 (7) ◽  
pp. 1215-1228 ◽  
Author(s):  
I J Bateman ◽  
I H Langford
Keyword(s):  
Willingness To Pay ◽  
Contingent Valuation ◽  
Budget Constraint ◽  
Design Effects ◽  
Ordering Effects ◽  
Split Sample ◽  
Design Options ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Temporal Extent

A split-sample approach is employed to test three potential design options for contingent valuation studies. A survey of unpriced woodland recreation is undertaken to test: (a) the impact of introducing budget-constraint questions; (b) the effect of varying temporal extent from willingness to pay (WTP) per annum to WTP per visit; and (c) the consequences of varying the order in which such WTP questions are presented to respondents. Some significant design effects are detected. Alternative explanations of such findings are considered and implications discussed.

Payment and Policy Consequentiality in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation: Experimental Design Effects on Self-Reported Perceptions

2021 ◽  
Vol 97 (2) ◽  
pp. 407-424
Author(s):  
Tobias Börger ◽  
Tenaw G. Abate ◽  
Margrethe Aanesen ◽  
Ewa Zawojska
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Design ◽  
Contingent Valuation ◽  
Dichotomous Choice ◽  
Design Effects

Design-Effects in Prospective and Retrospective Memory for Actions

2003 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petra Jahn ◽  
Johannes Engelkamp
Keyword(s):  
Prospective Memory ◽  
Memory Task ◽  
Prospective Memory Task ◽  
Retrospective Memory ◽  
Ample Evidence ◽  
Relational Information ◽  
Design Effects ◽  
Verbal Tasks ◽  
Within Subjects

There is ample evidence that memory for action phrases such as “open the bottle” is better in subject-performed tasks (SPTs), i.e., if the participants perform the actions, than in verbal tasks (VTs), if they only read the phrases or listen to them. It is less clear whether also the sole intention to perform the actions later, i.e., a prospective memory task (PT), improves memory compared with VTs. Inconsistent findings have been reported for within-subjects and between-subjects designs. The present study attempts to clarify the situation. In three experiments, better recall for SPTs than for PTs and for PTs than for VTs were observed if mixed lists were used. If pure lists were used, there was a PT effect but no SPT over PT advantage. The findings were discussed from the perspective of item-specific and relational information.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document