Does Specification Error Explain the Discrepancy Between Open-Ended and Dichotomous Choice Contigent Valuation Responses? A Comment on "Monte Carlo Benchmarks for Discrete Valuation Methods" by Ju-Chin Huang and V. Kerry Smith
Gregory Poe and
Christian Vossler
No 127665, Working Papers from Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management
Abstract:
In this working paper we demonstrate that some of the statistical tests used by Huang and Smith in a recent Land Economics article (74(2 1998): 186-202) were erroneous, and raise concerns about their corresponding conclusions. Specifically, using data from one of the studies that they showcase, we demonstrate that Huang and Smith’s analysis suggesting statistical equality between hypothetical dichotomous choice responses and actual contributions is incorrect. We further show that their purported equality between dichotomous choice and open-ended response formats is unfounded. Based on these analyses we conclude that when real humans make real or stated decisions, the observed procedural variance across elicitation methods and the degree of hypothetical bias are more fundamental than relying on alternative econometric specifications.
Keywords: Research; Methods/; Statistical; Methods (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Pages: 27
Date: 2001-09
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:
Downloads: (external link)
https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/127665/files/Cornell_Dyson_wp0118.pdf (application/pdf)
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:ags:cudawp:127665
DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.127665
Access Statistics for this paper
More papers in Working Papers from Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by AgEcon Search ().