If the price is right: vagueness and values clarification in contingent valuation
通过混合方法研究，发现半数受访者在支付意愿调查中给出的模糊回答意味着其实际最大支付意愿高于所报金额，且部分人利用成本信息来澄清自身价值，挑战了传统支付意愿理论。
The use of willingness to pay to value the benefits of health care is increasing. Much of this work assumes that health preferences are well formed or 'complete' and readily revealed if the right question is asked in the right way. We examined this assumption, seeking evidence in a mixed-methods study that explored the meaning and implications of vague responses to a payment-scale based willingness to pay exercise.One-half of the sample said that their vagueness meant that their maximum willingness to pay was actually greater than the amount that they had previously said it was. Thirty percent agreed that they would probably pay pound 10 more than a sum that they had previously said they would most definitely not pay, if they found this to be the cost of the vaccine. Interview data supported the view that the payment scale had failed to elicit the maximum willingness to pay and that some participants used the information on cost to help clarify their values, in contrast to the theory underpinning willingness to pay. The results suggest a need to consider values-clarification in health economic evaluations.