This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Explaining Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values: Further Investigation Using Meta-Analysis

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Joseph Little () (University of New Mexico)
Robert Berrens () (University of New Mexico)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

Spurred by the need to account for non-market values in various policy applications, a lively and extended debate has surrounded the presence and magnitude of hypothetical bias in stated value studies (e.g., applications of the survey-based contingent valuation method). Using the rapidly accumulating set of comparison studies, List and Gallet (2001) conducted an initial meta-analysis of the experimental protocol that may be influencing the disparity between real and hypothetical values in stated value studies. We expand the original meta-analysis by using a significantly larger (29%) data set, including variables to account for referendum formats, certainty corrections, and cheap talk scripts.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. 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.

File URL: http://www.economicsbulletin.com/2004/volume3/EB-03C90005A.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Article provided by Economics Bulletin in its journal Economics Bulletin.

Volume (Year): 3 (2004)
Issue (Month): 6 ()
Pages: 1-13
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2004:i:6:p:1-13

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Economics Bulletin, Department of Economics, 414 Calhoun Hall, Vanderbilt University, Nashville TN 37235, USA
Phone: 615-322-2920
Fax: 615-343-8495
Email:
Web page: http://www.economicsbulletin.com

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (John Conley).

Related research
Keywords: hypothetical bias; meta-analysis; valuation;

Find related papers by JEL classification:
C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
C1 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: General

References listed on IDEAS
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.:

  1. Eva Camacho-Cuena & Aurora García-Gallego & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Gerardo Sabater-Grande, 2004. "An Experimental Validation of Hypothetical WTP for a Recyclable Product," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 27(3), pages 313-335, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Taylor, Laura O. & McKee, Michael & Laury, Susan K. & Cummings, Ronald G., 2001. "Induced-value tests of the referendum voting mechanism," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 61-65, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. Johannesson, Magnus & Liljas, Bengt & O'Conor, Richard M, 1997. "Hypothetical versus Real Willingness to Pay: Some Experimental Results," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 4(3), pages 149-51, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. Vossler, Christian A. & Kerkvliet, Joe, 2003. "A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 631-649, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  7. Cummings, Ronald G, et al, 1997. "Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(3), pages 609-21, June.
  8. List, John A. & Shogren, Jason F., 2002. "Calibration of Willingness-to-Accept," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 219-233, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  9. Gregory Poe & Jeremy Clark & Daniel Rondeau & William Schulze, 2002. "Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(1), pages 105-131, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  10. V. Smith & Subhrendu Pattanayak, 2002. "Is Meta-Analysis a Noah's Ark for Non-Market Valuation?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 271-296, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  11. Kelly Giraud & John Loomis & Joseph Cooper, 2001. "A Comparison of Willingness to Pay Estimation Techniques From Referendum Questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(4), pages 331-346, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  12. Karen Blumenschein & Magnus Johannesson & Glenn C. Blomquist & Bengt Liljas & Richard M. O’Conor, 1998. "Experimental Results on Expressed Certainty and Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 65(1), pages 169-177, July.
  13. Timothy C. Haab & Ju-Chin Huang & John C. Whitehead, 1999. "Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible? A Comment," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 107(1), pages 186-196, February. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  14. Botelho, Anabela & Pinto, Ligia Costa, 2002. "Hypothetical, Real, and Predicted Real Willingness to Pay in Open-Ended Surveys: Experimental Results," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 9(15), pages 993-96, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  15. Paradiso, Massimo & Trisorio, Antonella, 2001. "The Effect of Knowledge on the Disparity between Hypothetical and Real Willingness to Pay," Applied Economics, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 33(11), pages 1359-64, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  16. Blumenschein, Karen & Johannesson, Magnus & Yokoyama, Krista K. & Freeman, Patricia R., 2001. "Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 441-457, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  17. Taylor, Laura O., 1998. "Incentive Compatible Referenda And The Valuation Of Environmental Goods," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 27(2), October. [Downloadable!]
  18. Vossler, Christian A. & Kerkvliet, Joe & Polasky, Stephen & Gainutdinova, Olesya, 2003. "Externally validating contingent valuation: an open-space survey and referendum in Corvallis, Oregon," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 261-277, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  19. Johannesson, Magnus, et al, 1999. "Calibrating Hypothetical Willingness to Pay Responses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 21-32, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  20. Anabela Botelho & Ligia Costa Pinto, 2001. "Hypothetical, real, and predicted real willingness to pay in open-ended surveys: experimental results," Working Papers 12, Núcleo de Investigação em Microeconomia Aplicada (NIMA), Universidade do Minho. [Downloadable!]
  21. Ronald G. Cummings & Laura O. Taylor, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Cited by:
(explanations, 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.)

  1. Johnston, Robert J. & Joglekar, Deepak P., 2005. "Validating Hypothetical Surveys Using Binding Public Referenda: Implications for Stated Preference Valuation," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19519, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association). [Downloadable!]
  2. Champ, Patricia A. & Moore, Rebecca & Bishop, Richard C., 2004. "Hypothetical Bias: The Mitigating Effects Of Certainty Questions And Cheap Talk," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 19951, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association). [Downloadable!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? RePEc and its associated services are free for contributors and users, and do not accept any advertising.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-16.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.