使用主观幸福感数据估算支付意愿的不精确性

IF 3.1 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Journal of Happiness Studies Pub Date : 2024-09-10 DOI:10.1007/s10902-024-00801-3
Lukas Leitner
{"title":"使用主观幸福感数据估算支付意愿的不精确性","authors":"Lukas Leitner","doi":"10.1007/s10902-024-00801-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The subjective well-being (SWB) method has become a popular tool to estimate the willingness to pay (WTP) for non-market goods using widely available well-being data. In this method, the WTP measure contains the ratio of two coefficients (of the non-market good and consumption), which are both estimated in a regression on SWB. Computing confidence intervals for such ratios turns out to be error-prone, in particular when the consumption coefficient is imprecisely estimated. Even though this problem is known, many studies either do not report imprecision in the final estimate, or use inadequate methods. This paper compares five different methods to compute confidence intervals for normal ratio distributions: the delta, Fieller, parametric bootstrapping, and bootstrapping method, and a numerical integration of Hinkley’s formula. In a simulation, a large number of emulated SWB data sets are generated to calculate confidence intervals for WTP and the corresponding coverage rates with each method. The findings suggest that the delta method is the least accurate and not robust to lowering the statistical power or changing correlations between the estimators. All other methods are fairly accurate, robust, and can be recommended for use.</p>","PeriodicalId":15837,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Happiness Studies","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Imprecision in the Estimation of Willingness to Pay Using Subjective Well-Being Data\",\"authors\":\"Lukas Leitner\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10902-024-00801-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The subjective well-being (SWB) method has become a popular tool to estimate the willingness to pay (WTP) for non-market goods using widely available well-being data. In this method, the WTP measure contains the ratio of two coefficients (of the non-market good and consumption), which are both estimated in a regression on SWB. Computing confidence intervals for such ratios turns out to be error-prone, in particular when the consumption coefficient is imprecisely estimated. Even though this problem is known, many studies either do not report imprecision in the final estimate, or use inadequate methods. This paper compares five different methods to compute confidence intervals for normal ratio distributions: the delta, Fieller, parametric bootstrapping, and bootstrapping method, and a numerical integration of Hinkley’s formula. In a simulation, a large number of emulated SWB data sets are generated to calculate confidence intervals for WTP and the corresponding coverage rates with each method. The findings suggest that the delta method is the least accurate and not robust to lowering the statistical power or changing correlations between the estimators. All other methods are fairly accurate, robust, and can be recommended for use.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15837,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Happiness Studies\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Happiness Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-024-00801-3\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Happiness Studies","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-024-00801-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

主观幸福感(SWB)法已成为一种流行的工具,用于利用广泛存在的幸福感数据估算非市场商品的支付意愿(WTP)。在这种方法中,WTP 测量包含两个系数(非市场商品和消费)的比率,这两个系数都是通过对 SWB 的回归估算得出的。计算这种比率的置信区间很容易出错,尤其是在消费系数估计不精确的情况下。尽管这一问题已众所周知,但许多研究要么没有报告最终估计值的不精确性,要么使用的方法不当。本文比较了计算正态比率分布置信区间的五种不同方法:delta 法、Fieller 法、参数引导法、引导法和 Hinkley 公式的数值积分法。在模拟实验中,生成了大量仿真的社工局数据集,用每种方法计算 WTP 的置信区间和相应的覆盖率。研究结果表明,德尔塔法最不准确,而且对降低统计能力或改变估算者之间的相关性也不稳健。所有其他方法都相当准确、稳健,可以推荐使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Imprecision in the Estimation of Willingness to Pay Using Subjective Well-Being Data

The subjective well-being (SWB) method has become a popular tool to estimate the willingness to pay (WTP) for non-market goods using widely available well-being data. In this method, the WTP measure contains the ratio of two coefficients (of the non-market good and consumption), which are both estimated in a regression on SWB. Computing confidence intervals for such ratios turns out to be error-prone, in particular when the consumption coefficient is imprecisely estimated. Even though this problem is known, many studies either do not report imprecision in the final estimate, or use inadequate methods. This paper compares five different methods to compute confidence intervals for normal ratio distributions: the delta, Fieller, parametric bootstrapping, and bootstrapping method, and a numerical integration of Hinkley’s formula. In a simulation, a large number of emulated SWB data sets are generated to calculate confidence intervals for WTP and the corresponding coverage rates with each method. The findings suggest that the delta method is the least accurate and not robust to lowering the statistical power or changing correlations between the estimators. All other methods are fairly accurate, robust, and can be recommended for use.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
6.50%
发文量
110
期刊介绍: The international peer-reviewed Journal of Happiness Studies is devoted to theoretical and applied advancements in all areas of well-being research. It covers topics referring to both the hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives characterizing well-being studies. The former includes the investigation of cognitive dimensions such as satisfaction with life, and positive affect and emotions. The latter includes the study of constructs and processes related to optimal psychological functioning, such as meaning and purpose in life, character strengths, personal growth, resilience, optimism, hope, and self-determination. In addition to contributions on appraisal of life-as-a-whole, the journal accepts papers investigating these topics in relation to specific domains, such as family, education, physical and mental health, and work. The journal welcomes high-quality theoretical and empirical submissions in the fields of economics, psychology and sociology, as well as contributions from researchers in the domains of education, medicine, philosophy and other related fields. The Journal of Happiness Studies provides a forum for three main areas in happiness research: 1) theoretical conceptualizations of well-being, happiness and the good life; 2) empirical investigation of well-being and happiness in different populations, contexts and cultures; 3) methodological advancements and development of new assessment instruments. The journal addresses the conceptualization, operationalization and measurement of happiness and well-being dimensions, as well as the individual, socio-economic and cultural factors that may interact with them as determinants or outcomes. Central Questions include, but are not limited to: Conceptualization: What meanings are denoted by terms like happiness and well-being? How do these fit in with broader conceptions of the good life? Operationalization and Measurement: Which methods can be used to assess how people feel about life? How to operationalize a new construct or an understudied dimension in the well-being domain? What are the best measures for investigating specific well-being related constructs and dimensions? Prevalence and causality Do individuals belonging to different populations and cultures vary in their well-being ratings? How does individual well-being relate to social and economic phenomena (characteristics, circumstances, behavior, events, and policies)? What are the personal, social and economic determinants and causes of individual well-being dimensions? Evaluation: What are the consequences of well-being for individual development and socio-economic progress? Are individual happiness and well-being worthwhile goals for governments and policy makers? Does well-being represent a useful parameter to orient planning in physical and mental healthcare, and in public health? Interdisciplinary studies: How has the study of happiness developed within and across disciplines? Can we link philosophical thought and empirical research? What are the biological correlates of well-being dimensions?
期刊最新文献
Thriving and Striving Around the World: A Cross-Cultural Examination of the Relationship Between Achievement Goals and Flourishing The Effect of Online Multi-Component Positive Psychology Intervention on Adolescents’ Risky Behaviors and Psychological Flexibility: A Mixed Method Study Trajectories of Personal Growth among First-Time Parents: The Predicting Role of Coping Flexibility and Parental Distress How Locus of Control Predicts Subjective Well-Being and its Inequality: The Moderating Role of Social Values Disability and Life Satisfaction: The Role of Accessibility
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1