楼主: 随机误差262
493 0

[英文文献] Incentive compatibility and procedural invariance testing of the one-and-on... [推广有奖]

  • 0关注
  • 0粉丝

等待验证会员

学前班

0%

还不是VIP/贵宾

-

威望
0
论坛币
0 个
通用积分
0
学术水平
0 点
热心指数
0 点
信用等级
0 点
经验
10 点
帖子
0
精华
0
在线时间
0 小时
注册时间
2020-9-21
最后登录
2020-9-21

楼主
随机误差262 发表于 2005-11-19 20:54:11 |AI写论文

+2 论坛币
k人 参与回答

经管之家送您一份

应届毕业生专属福利!

求职就业群
赵安豆老师微信:zhaoandou666

经管之家联合CDA

送您一个全额奖学金名额~ !

感谢您参与论坛问题回答

经管之家送您两个论坛币!

+2 论坛币
英文文献:Incentive compatibility and procedural invariance testing of the one-and-one-half-bound dichotomous choice elicitation method: distinguishing strategic behaviour from the anchoring heuristic
英文文献作者:Bateman, Ian J.,Day, Brett H.,Dupont, Diane P.,Georgiou, Stavros
英文文献摘要:
The contingent valuation method for estimating willingness to pay for public goods typically adopts a single referendum question format which is statistically inefficient. As an alternative, Cooper, Hanemann and Signorello (2002) propose the 'one-and-one-half bound' (OOHB) format allowing researchers to question respondents about both a lower and higher limit upon project costs, thereby securing substantial statistical efficiency gains. These bounds are presented prior to the elicitation of responses thereby avoiding the negative 'surprise' induced by an unanticipated second question. However, this approach conflicts with the Gibbard-Satterthwaite result that only a single referendum format question is incentive compatible. The OOHB method may therefore be liable to strategic behaviour or reliance upon the anchoring heuristic observed in other repeated response elicitation formats. In a first formal test of the method we show that it fails crucial tests of procedural invariance and induces strategic behaviour amongst responses.
二维码

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明:姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格,未注明则拒绝


您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 我要注册

本版微信群
扫码
拉您进交流群
GMT+8, 2026-1-28 23:03