The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Social Desirability Bias in Contingent Valuation Surveys Administered Through In-Person Interviews
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine by HPLC-DAD-MS the pigment profiles and the different anthocyanin-derived pigment formation in four monovarietal young red wines produced in Uruguay from different grape varieties (Caladoc, Marselan, Marzemino, and Cheveñasco) and compare them to that of a young Vitis vinifera cv. Tannat wine produced in the same vintage. In quantitative terms, Tannat wine had the highest total pigment content whereas Cheveñasco had the lowest. Results showed differences not only in anthocyanin composition but also in the chemical nature of the major anthocyanin-derived pigments present in each wine. Tannat had the lowest content in derived pigments, vitisin A being the most representative. Caladoc and Marselan were characterized by the highest percentages of malvidin-3-glucoside and its acyl derivatives. The 4-vinylphenol derivative of malvidin-3-glucoside was the major pyranoanthocyanin in both wines, along with vitisin A in Caladoc and vitisin B in Marselan. The major anthocyanin-derived pigments of Marzemino were B-type vitisins. Marzemino also contained anthocyanin-flavanol acetaldehyde-mediated condensation products, which might indicate higher levels of acetaldehyde in this wine than in the others. Cheveñasco had the highest percentage of derived pigments, with the 4-vinylphenol derivative of malvidin-3-glucoside the most representative and the second most abundant compound after malvidin-3-glucoside.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies
Johnston, R. J., Boyle, K. J., Adamowicz, W. (., Bennett, J., Brouwer, R., Cameron, T. A., Hanemann, W. M., Hanley, N., Ryan, M., Scarpa, R., et al. (2017) · Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists · doi:10.1086/691697 · Cited by 1,430
Self-citationDangelico, R. M., Pujari, D., & Pontrandolfo, P. (2017) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.1932 · Cited by 800
Intention to use a fully automated car: Attitudes and a priori acceptability
Payre, W., Cestac, J., & Delhomme, P. (2014) · Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.trf.2014.04.009 · Cited by 695
Contingent Valuation in Practice
Boyle, K. J. (2017) · The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7104-8_4 · Cited by 323
Self-citationHaefele, M., Loomis, J. B., & Bilmes, L. (2016) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2821124 · Cited by 44
Metadata
- Authors
- Leggett, C. G., Kleckner, N. S., Boyle, K. J., Dufield, J. W., & Mitchell, R. C.
- Venue
- Land Economics
- Publisher
- University of Wisconsin Press
- Published
- 2003-11
- Volume
- 79
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 561-575
- ISSN
- 0023-7639 (ISSN-L)
- 1543-8325
- OpenAlex
- W2126009833
- Cited by
- 208
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Social Desirability Bias in Contingent Valuation Surveys Administered Through In-Person Interviews. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/3147300
- The paper
- Leggett, C. G., Kleckner, N. S., Boyle, K. J., Dufield, J. W., & Mitchell, R. C. (2003). Social Desirability Bias in Contingent Valuation Surveys Administered Through In-Person Interviews. Land Economics. https://doi.org/10.2307/3147300
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
