Premium
Trust, Responsibility and the Interpretation of Contingent Valuation Results
Author(s) -
Blamey Russell K.
Publication year - 1998
Publication title -
australian economic papers
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.351
H-Index - 15
eISSN - 1467-8454
pISSN - 0004-900X
DOI - 10.1111/1467-8454.00020
Subject(s) - contingent valuation , respondent , valuation (finance) , perspective (graphical) , willingness to pay , perception , social psychology , economics , criterion validity , psychology , actuarial science , microeconomics , construct validity , political science , computer science , accounting , psychometrics , law , clinical psychology , artificial intelligence , neuroscience
Responses to contingent valuation questionnaires are contingent on respondent perceptions of trust and responsibility regarding aspects of the scenario presented to them. These issues can influence CV responses in several ways, with the net effect on WTP estimates depending on the relative prevalence of the different opposing effects in a given application. Whether such effects are to be considered biases, to be removed where possible, depends on the notion of validity one adopts. Whilst issues of trust and responsibility may pose little threat to predictive notions of validity, they are more problematic from a surplus validity, cost‐benefit, perspective. Further discussion of the pros and cons of different validity notions for contingent valuation is required.