A Comparison of Approaches to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias
AbstractWe compare two approaches to mitigating hypothetical bias. The study design includes three treatments: an actual payment treatment, a contingent valuation (CV) treatment with a follow-up certainty question, and a CV treatment with a cheap talk script. Our results suggest that both the follow-up certainty treatment and the cheap talk treatment produce willingness-to-pay (WTP) estimates consistent with the actual payment treatment. However, the follow-up certainty treatment provides response distributions at all offer amounts that are statistically similar to the actual payment treatment, while the cheap talk treatment provides similar responses only at some offer amounts. Furthermore, the cheap talk treatment is effective only for inexperienced individuals. We conclude that the follow-up certainty approach is more consistent than the cheap talk approach for eliminating hypothetical bias.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association in its journal Agricultural and Resource Economics Review.
Volume (Year): 38 (2009)
Issue (Month): 2 (October)
contingent valuation; hypothetical bias; follow-up certainty; cheap talk; nonmarket valuation; Environmental Economics and Policy; Public Economics; Research Methods/ Statistical Methods;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Aadland, David & Caplan, Arthur J., 2006.
"Cheap talk reconsidered: New evidence from CVM,"
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,
Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 562-578, August.
- Loomis, John B., 2014. "2013WAEA Keynote Address: Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(1), April.
- Voltaire, Louinord & Pirrone, Claudio & Bailly, Denis, 2013. "Dealing with preference uncertainty in contingent willingness to pay for a nature protection program: A new approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 76-85.
- Peter A. Groothuis & Kristan Cockerill & Tanga M. Mohr, 2013. "Water doesn’t flow up hill: Determinants of Willingness to Pay for Water Conservation Measures in the Mountains of Western North Carolina," Working Papers 13-26, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
- Moser, Riccarda & Raffaelli, Roberta & Notaro, Sandra, 2010. "The Role Of Production Methods In Fruit Purchasing Behaviour: Hypothetical Vs Actual Consumers’ Preferences And Stated Minimum Requirements," 115th Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, September 15-17, 2010, Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany 116426, European Association of Agricultural Economists & Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
- Stephane Luchini & Verity Watson, 2008.
"Does respondent uncertainty explain framing effects in double bounded contingent valuation?,"
- Franceschi, Dina & VÃ¡squez, William F., 2011. "Do Supervisors Affect the Valuation of Public Goods?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 40(2), August.
- Fifer, Simon & Rose, John & Greaves, Stephen, 2014. "Hypothetical bias in Stated Choice Experiments: Is it a problem? And if so, how do we deal with it?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 164-177.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.