Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-10T12:58:32.532Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Experiment in Contingent Valuation and Social Desirability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Andrew S. Laughland ,
Wesley N. Musser  and
Lynn M. Musser
Andrew S. Laughland
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Pennsylvania State University
Wesley N. Musser
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Pennsylvania State University
Lynn M. Musser
Affiliation:
Department of Child Development and Family Studies, Purdue University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Social desirability (SD) represents the problem of subjects responding with social norms rather than individual values. This paper briefly surveys the SD literature and considers its relevance for contingent valuation (CV) studies. In an empirical study, undergraduate students were administered the Mariowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, as well as CV questions. High SD scores were hypothesized to imply a greater likelihood of offering a protest reason for a zero bid and to increase bids for socially desirable commodities. While all hypotheses were not supported, the empirical results suggest that SD can influence CV responses and should not be dismissed prematurely.

Type
Articles
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , April 1994 , pp. 29 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Belsley, D.A., Kuh, E., and Welsch, R.E. Regression Diagnostics. New York: Wiley, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, K.J., and Bishop, R.C. “Welfare Measurement Using Contingent Valuation: A Comparison of Techniques.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70 (1988): 20–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, K.J., Bishop, R.C., and Welsch, M.P. “Starting Point Bias in Contingent Valuation Bidding Games.” Land Economics 61 (1985): 188–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowne, D., and Marlowe, D. The Approval Motive. New York: Wiley, 1964.Google Scholar
DeMaio, T.J. “Social Desirability and Survey Measurement: A Review.” in Surveying Subjective Phenomena, Vol. 2, edited by Turner, C.F. and Martin, E. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1984.Google Scholar
Desvousges, W.H., Smith, V.K., and Fisher, A. “Option Price Estimates for Water Quality Improvements: A Contingent Valuation Study for the Monongahela River.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 14 (1987): 248–267.Google Scholar
Fischoff, B. and Furby, L. “Measuring Values: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Transactions with Special Reference to Contingent Valuation of Visibility.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1 (1988): 147–184.Google Scholar
Halstead, J.M., Luloff, A.E., and Stevens, T.H. “Protest Bidders in Contingent Valuation.” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 21 (1992): 160–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Knetsch, J.L. “Valuing Public Goods: The Purchase of Moral Satisfaction.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22 (1992): 57–70.Google Scholar
Kealy, M.J., Montgomery, M., and Dovidio, J.F. “Reliability and Predictive Validity of Contingent Values: Does the Nature of the Good Matter?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 19 (1990): 244–263.Google Scholar
Laughland, A.S., Musser, W.N., and Musser, L.M. “An Experiment on the Reliability of Contingent Valuation.” Selected paper presented at the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists Annual Meetings in Manhattan, Kansas, August 4–7, 1991.Google Scholar
Luthans, F. “The Relationship between Age and Job Satisfaction.” Personnel Review 18 (1989): 23–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R.C. and Carson, R.T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington: Resources for the Future, 1989.Google Scholar
O'Brien, F.P. “Work-related Fear of AIDS and Social Desirability Response Bias.” Psychological Reports 65 (1989): 371–378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paulhus, D.L. “Measurement and Control of Response Bias.” In Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes, edited by Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R., and Wrightman, L.S. San Diego: Academic Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Phillips, D.L., and Clancy, K.J. “Some Effects of ‘Social Desirability’ in Survey Studies.” American Journal of Sociology 77 (1972): 921–940.Google Scholar
Robinson, J.P. and Shaver, P.R. Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes, Revised edition. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1973.Google Scholar
SAS Institute Inc. SAS User's Guide: Statistics, Version 5 Edition. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute Inc., 1985.Google Scholar
Seller, C., Stoll, J.R., and Chavas, J-P. “Validation of Empirical Measures of Welfare Change: A Comparison of Nonmarket Techniques.” Land Economics 61 (1972): 156–175.Google Scholar
Smith, V.K. “Arbitrary Values, Good Causes and Premature Verdicts.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22 (1992): 71–89.Google Scholar