发帖
雷达卡
英文文献：Verbiage Matters: Do Respondents Answer Willingness to Pay Dichotomous Choice Questions on a Per Person or Per Group Basis?-措辞很重要:受访者回答的问题是愿意为每个人还是每个团体支付二分选择的问题?二分选择支付意愿问题常被用来确定游客对自然娱乐的价值
英文文献作者：Lohman, Greta,Keske, Catherine M.,Loomis, John B.
英文文献摘要：
Dichotomous choice willingness to pay questions are often used to determine the value visitors place on nature-based recreation. Ambiguity in wording can result in the use of information that does not necessarily reflect visitors’ true WTP. For example, depending on the specificity of the verbiage used, respondents may answer questions on a group basis, rather than an individual basis. To address this issue, experimental surveys were distributed with questions that specifically asked WTP on a per person basis, as compared to control surveys in which the WTP question was more generally worded. Analyses show WTP responses for either survey type are statistically different, with non-overlapping confidence intervals. Furthermore, approaches were conducted to correct for potential differences in interpretation, in the event that control survey respondents answered for the group as opposed to answering as an individual. Each method yielded different results, with non-overlapping confidence intervals. The lack of consensus between results indicates that there is a high level of variance in visitor’s interpretation of dichotomous choice questions. Therefore, it is necessary to use specific verbiage when designing surveys, to ensure responses to WTP dichotomous choice questions can be interpreted correctly by researchers. Specifically, if researchers want respondents to answer on an individual basis, this language needs to be explicitly stated.
模棱两可的措辞会导致使用的信息不一定反映出访问者的真实意愿。例如，根据所使用的措辞的特殊性，应答者可能以组为基础回答问题，而不是以个人为基础。为了解决这一问题，实验调查中发放的问题是针对每个人具体提出的目标目标问题，而对照调查中目标目标问题更普遍。分析表明，WTP对任何一种调查类型的响应在统计上是不同的，具有不重叠的置信区间。此外，还采取了一些方法来纠正在解释中可能存在的差异，如果控制调查的回答者代表群体回答问题，而不是作为个人回答的话。每种方法的结果不同，置信区间不重叠。结果之间缺乏共识表明访客对二分选择问题的解释存在很大的差异。因此，在设计调查时，有必要使用特定的措辞，以确保对WTP二分选择问题的回答能够被研究者正确理解。具体地说，如果研究人员想要受访者在个人的基础上回答，这种语言需要明确说明。
京公网安备 11010802022788号
