How common is the ‘prominence effect’? Additional evidence to Whynes et al

Judith Covey and Richard D. Smith

Health Economics, 2006, vol. 15, issue 2, 205-210

Abstract: In a recent issue of Health Economics Letters, Whynes et al. report an observation not previously reported in the willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) literature; that when people are asked to provide an estimate using payment scales they tend to disproportionately select prominent values (that is, 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, etc.). However, it remains an open question just how common this prominence effect actually is. Here we present data from several additional contingent valuation (CV) studies, which suggest that although prominence occurs, it does not reach statistical significance, as found by Whynes et al. A number of reasons are outlined to explain this. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Date: 2006
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (6)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1062

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:15:y:2006:i:2:p:205-210

Access Statistics for this article

Health Economics is currently edited by Alan Maynard, John Hutton and Andrew Jones

More articles in Health Economics from John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().