| dc.creator |
Hey, John Denis |
|
| dc.creator |
Morone, Andrea |
|
| dc.creator |
Schmidt, Ulrich |
|
| dc.date |
2007 |
|
| dc.date.accessioned |
2013-10-16T06:05:47Z |
|
| dc.date.available |
2013-10-16T06:05:47Z |
|
| dc.date.issued |
2013-10-16 |
|
| dc.identifier |
http://hdl.handle.net/10419/4098 |
|
| dc.identifier |
ppn:549781129 |
|
| dc.identifier.uri |
http://koha.mediu.edu.my:8181/xmlui/handle/10419/4098 |
|
| dc.description |
In the context of eliciting preferences for decision making under risk, we ask the question: "which might be the 'best' method for eliciting such preferences?". It is well known that different methods differ in terms of the bias in the elicitation; it is rather less well-known that different methods differ in terms of their noisiness. The optimal trade-off depends upon the relative magnitudes of these two effects. We examine four different elicitation mechanisms (pairwise choice, willingness-to-pay, willingness-to-accept, and certainty equivalents) and estimate both effects. Our results suggest that economists might be better advised to use what appears to be a relatively inefficient elicitation technique (i.e. pairwise choice) in order to avoid the bias in better-known and more widely-used techniques. |
|
| dc.language |
eng |
|
| dc.publisher |
Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW) Kiel |
|
| dc.relation |
Kieler Arbeitspapiere 1386 |
|
| dc.rights |
http://www.econstor.eu/dspace/Nutzungsbedingungen |
|
| dc.subject |
C91 |
|
| dc.subject |
C81 |
|
| dc.subject |
ddc:330 |
|
| dc.subject |
Pairwise choice |
|
| dc.subject |
WTP |
|
| dc.subject |
WTA |
|
| dc.subject |
Errors |
|
| dc.subject |
Noise |
|
| dc.subject |
Biases |
|
| dc.subject |
Entscheidung bei Risiko |
|
| dc.subject |
Willingness to pay |
|
| dc.subject |
Experiment |
|
| dc.subject |
Modell-Spezifikation |
|
| dc.subject |
Statistischer Fehler |
|
| dc.subject |
Bias |
|
| dc.subject |
Präferenztheorie |
|
| dc.title |
Noise and bias in eliciting preferences |
|
| dc.type |
doc-type:workingPaper |
|