An empirical examination of reducing status quo bias in heterogeneous populations: evidence from the South African water sector

Murwirapachena, Genius and Dikgang, Johane (2018): An empirical examination of reducing status quo bias in heterogeneous populations: evidence from the South African water sector.

Abstract

Choice experiments typically include a status quo option, which often describes the current scenario. This is to secure the validity and applicability of choice experiments. People have a propensity to choose what they are familiar with, despite being presented with alternatives that seem better (i.e. the ‘status quo effect’). Various experiments have reliably demonstrated this effect. The tendency to prefer the current scenario disproportionally does not mimic real-life preferences; therefore, status quo bias is undesirable. In a split sample framework, we test for the effects of reducing status quo bias by considering a heterogeneous sample. We use generalised mixed logit models to carry out the tests. The tests reveal that presenting each split sample with a partially relevant status quo significantly reduces the status quo bias problem.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: choice experiments, heterogeneous, generalised mixed logit, status quo bias.
• Subjects: H - Public Economics > H4 - Publicly Provided Goods > H41 - Public Goods; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q2 - Renewable Resources and Conservation > Q25 - Water; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q51 - Valuation of Environmental Effects

References

Aho, K., Derryberry, D. and Peterson, T. 2014. Model selection for ecologists: the worldviews of AIC and BIC. Ecology, 95, 631-636.

Akaike, H. 1998. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. Selected Papers of Hirotugu Akaike. Springer.

Alpizar, F., Carlsson, F. and Martinsson, P. 2001. Using choice experiments for non-market valuation. Economic Issues 8, 83–110.

Anderson, C. J. 2003. The psychology of doing nothing: forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 139.

Banerjee, S. G., Foster, V., Ying, Y., Skilling, H. and Wodon, Q. T. 2010. Cost recovery, equity, and efficiency in water tariffs: evidence from African utilities. Africa Infrastructure Country Diagnostic (AICD).

Bateman, I. J., Day, B. H., Jones, A. P. and Jude, S. 2009. Reducing gain–loss asymmetry: a virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 58, 106-118.

Beattie, J., Baron, J., Hershey, J. C. and Spranca, M. D. 1994. Psychological determinants of decision attitude. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7, 129-144.

Beck, T., Rodina, L., Luker, E. and Harris, L., 2016. Institutional and policy mapping of the water sector in South Africa. Vancouver, Canada: The University of British Columbia, Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability.

Ben-Akiva, M. E. and Lerman, S. R. 1985. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand, MIT Press.

Bliemer, M. C. and Rose, J. M. 2006. Designing Stated Choice Experiments: State of the Art. Emerald.

Bliemer, M. C., Rose, J. M. and Chorus, C. G. 2017. Detecting dominance in stated choice data and accounting for dominance-based scale differences in logit models. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 102, 83-104.

Bliemer, M. C., Rose, J. M. and Hess, S. 2008. Approximation of Bayesian efficiency in experimental choice designs. Journal of Choice Modelling, 1, 98-126.

Bonnichsen, O. and Ladenburg, J., 2015. Reducing status quo bias in choice experiments. Nordic Journal of Health Economics, 3, 47-67.

Boxall, P., Adamowicz, W. L. and Moon, A. 2009. Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 53, 503-519.

Brouwer, R., Job, F. C., Van der Kroon, B. and Johnston, R. 2015. Comparing willingness to pay for improved drinking-water quality using stated preference methods in rural and urban Kenya. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 13, 81-94.

Burnham, K. P. and Anderson, D. R. 2004. Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods and Research, 33, 261-304.

Campbell, D., Hutchinson, W. G. and Scarpa, R. 2008. Incorporating discontinuous preferences into the analysis of discrete choice experiments. Environmental and Resource Economics, 41, 401-417.

Dhar, R. and Simonson, I. 2003. The effect of forced choice on choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 40, 146-160.

Diamond, P. A. and Hausman, J. A. 1994. Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, 45-64.

Dikgang, J. and Muchapondwa, E. 2014. The economic valuation of nature-based tourism in the South African Kgalagadi area and implications for the Khomani San ‘bushmen’community. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 3, 306-322.

Dubé, J. P., Hitsch, G. J. and Rossi, P. E. 2010. State dependence and alternative explanations for consumer inertia. The RAND Journal of Economics, 41, 417-445.

Ethekwini Municipality. 2014. Provision of Potable Water, eThekwini Municipality [Online]. eThekwini Municipality. Available: http://www.durban.gov.za/City_Services/water_sanitation/Services/Pages/Provision.aspx [Accessed 15 May 2015].

Ethekwini Municipality. 2015. eThekwini's Official Unemployment Rate Lowest in the Country [Online]. eThekwini Municipality. Available: http://www.durban.gov.za/Resource_Centre/Press_Releases/Pages/EThekwini's-Official-Unemployement-Rate-Lowest-In-The-Country.aspx [Accessed 2 May 2016].

Fiebig, D. G., Keane, M. P., Louviere, J. and Wasi, N. 2010. The generalized multinomial logit model: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Marketing Science, 29, 393-421.

Greene, W. H. 2003. Econometric Analysis, Pearson Education India.

Greene, W. H. 2012. NLOGIT Version 5 Reference Guide. Econometric Software, Inc.: Econometric Software, Inc. Plainview, NY.

Goldin, J. A., 2010. Water policy in South Africa: trust and knowledge as obstacles to reform. Review of Radical Political Economics, 42(2), 195-212.

Hanley, N., Mourato, S. and Wright, R. E. 2001. Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuatioin? Journal of Economic Surveys, 15, 435-462.

Hensher, D., Shore, N. and Train, K. 2005a. Households’ willingness to pay for water service attributes. Environmental and Resource Economics, 32, 509-531.

Hensher, D. A. and Greene, W. H. 2003. The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation, 30, 133-176.

Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M. and Greene, W. H. 2005b. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer, Cambridge University Press.

Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M. and Greene, W. H. 2015. Applied Choice Analysis, Cambridge University Press.

Herrfahrdt-Pähle, E., 2010. South African water governance between administrative and hydrological boundaries. Climate and Development, 2, 111-127.

Hess, S. and Rose, J. M. 2009. Should reference alternatives in pivot design SC surveys be treated differently? Environmental and Resource Economics, 42, 297-317.

Jansen, A. and Schulz, C.E., 2006. Water demand and the urban poor: A study of the factors influencing water consumption among housholds in Cape Town, South Africa. South African Journal of Economics, 74(3), 593-609.

Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L. and Thaler, R. J. 1991. The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economics Perspective, 5, 193-206.

Keane, M. P. and Wasi, N. 2012. Estimation of discrete choice models with many alternatives using random subsets of the full choice set: with an application to demand for frozen pizza.

Korobkin, R. 1997. Status quo bias and contract default rules. Cornell L. Rev., 83, 608.

Lanz, B. and Provins, A. 2015. Using discrete choice experiments to regulate the provision of water services: do status quo choices reflect preferences? Journal of Regulatory Economics, 47, 300-324.

Louviere, J. J. 2001. Choice experiments: an overview of concepts and issues. The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation, 13-36.

Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A. and Swait, J. D. 2000. Stated choice methods: analysis and applications, Cambridge University Press.

Maltz, A. and Romagnoli, G. 2015. The effect of ambiguity on status quo bias: an experimental study. Working Paper.

Mandler, J. M. 2004. The Foundations of Mind: Origins of Conceptual Thought, Oxford University Press.

Marsh, D., Mkwara, L. and Scarpa, R. 2011. Do respondents’ perceptions of the status quo matter in non-market valuation with choice experiments? An application to New Zealand freshwater streams. Sustainability, 3, 1593-1615.

McFadden, D. 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. in Frontiers in Econometrics, ed. P. Zarembka. New York: Academic Press, 105–142.

Meyerhoff, J. and Liebe, U. 2009. Status quo effect in choice experiments: empirical evidence on attitudes and choice task complexity. Land Economics, 85, 515-528.

Moon, A. 2004. Assessing the impacts of complexity in stated preference methods. Unpublished MSc thesis, Department of Rural Economy, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta Canada, 126.

Muller, M., 2008. Free basic water - a sustainable instrument for a sustainable future in South Africa. Environment and Urbanization, 20, 67-87.

Oehlmann, M., Meyerhoff, J., Mariel, P. and Weller, P. 2017. Uncovering context-induced status quo effects in choice experiments. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 81, 59-73.

Orzechowski, M., Arentze, T., Borgers, A. and Timmermans, H. 2005. Alternate methods of conjoint analysis for estimating housing preference functions: Effects of presentation style. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 20, 349-362.

Patterson, Z., Darbani, J. M., Rezaei, A., Zacharias, J. and Yazdizadeh, A. 2017. Comparing text-only and virtual reality discrete choice experiments of neighbourhood choice. Landscape and Urban Planning, 157, 63-74.

Ritov, I. and Baron, J. 1992. Status-quo and omission biases. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 49-61.

Rose, J. M. and Bliemer, M. C. 2009. Constructing efficient stated choice experimental designs. Transport Reviews, 29, 587-617.

Saldías, C., Speelman, S., Van Huylenbroeck, G. and Vink, N. 2016. Understanding farmers’ preferences for wastewater reuse frameworks in agricultural irrigation: lessons from a choice experiment in the Western Cape, South Africa. Water SA, 42, 26-37.

Samuelson, W. and Zeckhauser, R. 1988. Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7-59.

Scarpa, R., Willis, K. G. and Acutt, M. 2007. Valuing externalities from water supply: status quo, choice complexity and individual random effects in panel kernel logit analysis of choice experiments. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50, 449-466.

Schweitzer, M. 1994. Disentangling status quo and omission effects: an experimental analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process 58, 457-476.

Statistics South Africa 2011. National Census 2011. Pretoria, South Africa.

Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. 1991. Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-dependent model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 1039-1061.

Tykocinski, O. E., Pittman, T. S. and Tuttle, E. E. 1995. Inaction inertia: foregoing future benefits as a result of an initial failure to act. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 793.

Vriens, M., Loosschilder, G. H., Rosbergen, E. and Wittink, D. R. 1998. Verbal versus realistic pictorial representations in conjoint analysis with design attributes. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15, 455-467.

Zhang, J. and Adamowicz, W. L. 2011. Unraveling the choice format effect: A context-dependent random utility model. Land Economics, 87, 730-743.