Insensitivity to scope in contingent valuation studies. Reason for dismissal of valuations?

Sogaard, Rikke, Lindholt, Jes and Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte (2012) Insensitivity to scope in contingent valuation studies. Reason for dismissal of valuations?. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 10 6: 397-405.

Attached Files (Some files may be inaccessible until you login with your UQ eSpace credentials)
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Author Sogaard, Rikke
Lindholt, Jes
Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte
Title Insensitivity to scope in contingent valuation studies. Reason for dismissal of valuations?
Journal name Applied Health Economics and Health Policy  (ERA 2012 Listed)    (ERA 2010 Rank C)   Check publisher's open access policy
Publication date 2012-11-01
Sub-type Article
DOI 10.2165/11633800-000000000-00000
Volume number 10
Issue number 6
ISSN 1175-5652; 1179-1896
Start page 397
End page 405
Total pages 9
Place of publication Auckland, New Zealand
Publisher Adis International
Collection year 2013
Language eng
Formatted abstract Background: The credibility of contingent valuation studies has been questioned because of the potential occurrence of scope insensitivity, i.e. that respondents do not react to higher quantities or qualities of a good.
Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the extent of scope insensitivity and to assess the relevance of potential explanations that may help to shed light on how to appropriately handle this problem in contingent valuation studies.
Methods: We surveyed a sample of 2004 men invited for cardiovascular disease screening. Each respondent had three contingent valuation tasks from which their sensitivity to larger risk reductions (test 1) and to change in travel costs associated with participation (test 2) could be assessed. Participants were surveyed while waiting for their screening session. Non-participants were surveyed by postal questionnaire.
Results: The sample was overall found to be sensitive to scope, testing at the conventional sample-mean level. At the individual respondent level, however, more than half of the respondents failed the tests. Potential determinants for failing the tests were examined in alternative regression models but few consistent relationships were identified. One exception was the influence of more detailed information, which was positively associated with willingness to pay and negatively associated with scope sensitivity.
Conclusion: Possible explanations for scope insensitivity are discussed; if cognitive limitations, emotional load and mental budgeting explain scope insensitivity there are grounds for rejecting valuations, whereas other factors such as the alternative theoretical framework of regret theory may render insensitivity to scope a result of rational thinking. It is concluded that future contingent valuation studies should focus more on extracting the underlying motives for the stated preferences in order to appropriately deal with responses that are seemingly irrational, and which may lead to imprecise welfare estimates.
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Confirmed Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article
Collections: Official 2013 Collection
Admin Only - School of Medicine
School of Medicine Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 18 Abstract Views, 3 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Tue, 18 Sep 2012, 14:23:36 EST by Chesne McGrath on behalf of Medicine - Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital