IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v176y2020icp416-430.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unraveling hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Menapace, Luisa
  • Raffaelli, Roberta

Abstract

Our study contributes to the literature on hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments in two main respects. First, using stated and revealed preference data collected from a sample of grocery shoppers, we explore the effectiveness of two mitigation techniques—the Bayesian truth serum and the use of indirect questions (inferred valuation). Results show that both techniques are able to reduce (but not completely remove) hypothetical bias. Second, we contribute to the understanding of sources of hypothetical bias. We find evidence that signaling is a source of hypothetical bias in direct questions and affects public attributes. Our findings also suggest that biased perceptions of one's own and/or other people's values are a source of hypothetical bias in direct and indirect questions and affect public and private attributes.

Suggested Citation

  • Menapace, Luisa & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2020. "Unraveling hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 416-430.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:176:y:2020:i:c:p:416-430
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2020.04.020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268120301335
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jebo.2020.04.020?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    2. Jerrod M Penn & Wuyang Hu, 2018. "Understanding Hypothetical Bias: An Enhanced Meta-Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1186-1206.
    3. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2004:i:6:p:1-13 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(8), pages 827-840, August.
    5. Richard Bennett & Kelvin Balcombe & Philip Jones & Andrew Butterworth, 2019. "The Benefits of Farm Animal Welfare Legislation: The Case of the EU Broiler Directive and Truthful Reporting," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(1), pages 135-152, February.
    6. Sabrina Teyssier & Fabrice Etile & Pierre Combris, 2015. "Social- and self-image concerns in fair-trade consumption," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 42(4), pages 579-606.
    7. Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Svedsäter, Henrik, 2012. "Self-image and valuation of moral goods: Stated versus actual willingness to pay," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 879-891.
    8. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood, 2009. "An Inferred Valuation Method," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 500-514.
    9. Gregory L. Poe & Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365.
    10. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Kenneth Train, 2008. "Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 994-1010.
    11. Klaiman, Kimberly & Ortega, David L. & Garnache, Cloé, 2016. "Consumer preferences and demand for packaging material and recyclability," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 1-8.
    12. Lava Yadav & Thomas M. van Rensburg & Hugh Kelley, 2013. "A Comparison Between the Conventional Stated Preference Technique and an Inferred Valuation Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(2), pages 405-422, June.
    13. Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Campbell, Danny, 2014. "Behavioral implications of providing real incentives in stated choice experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 102-116.
    14. Joseph Little & Robert Berrens, 2004. "Explaining Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values: Further Investigation Using Meta-Analysis," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(6), pages 1-13.
    15. Charles F. Manski, 2004. "Measuring Expectations," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(5), pages 1329-1376, September.
    16. Scarpa, R. & Thiene, M. & Train, K., 2008. "Appendix to Utility in WTP space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1-9, January.
    17. Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey, 2009. "Bridging the gap between laboratory experiments and naturally occurring markets: An inferred valuation method," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 236-250, September.
    18. Arthur Carvalho, 2016. "An Overview of Applications of Proper Scoring Rules," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 223-242, December.
    19. Barrage, Lint & Lee, Min Sok, 2010. "A penny for your thoughts: Inducing truth-telling in stated preference elicitation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 140-142, February.
    20. Olynk, Nicole J. & Tonsor, Glynn T. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2010. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Livestock Credence Attribute Claim Verification," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 35(2), pages 1-20, August.
    21. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
    22. Cicia, Gianni & Cembalo, Luigi & Del Giudice, Teresa & Palladino, Andrea, 2012. "Fossil energy versus nuclear, wind, solar and agricultural biomass: Insights from an Italian national survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 59-66.
    23. Andreas C. Drichoutis & Achilleas Vassilopoulos & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. NaygaJr., 2017. "Consumer preferences for fair labour certification," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(3), pages 455-474.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    3. Alexander Harin, 2022. "Forbidden Zones for the Expectations of Data: New Mathematical Methods and Models for Behavioral Economics," Academic Journal of Applied Mathematical Sciences, Academic Research Publishing Group, vol. 8(1), pages 12-26, 12-2021.
    4. Jay Lillywhite & Chadelle Robinson, 2023. "Understanding Chile Pepper Consumers’ Preferences: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-11, September.
    5. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods," Papers 2102.02945, arXiv.org.
    6. Lehmann, Nico & Sloot, Daniel & Ardone, Armin & Fichtner, Wolf, 2021. "The limited potential of regional electricity marketing – Results from two discrete choice experiments in Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    7. Maria Elena Saija & Sara Daniotti & Diego Bosco & Ilaria Re, 2023. "A Choice Experiment Model for Sustainable Consumer Goods: A Systematic Literature Review and Workflow Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-22, September.
    8. Alicia Entem & Patrick Lloyd‐Smith & Wiktor ( Vic) L. Adamowicz & Peter C. Boxall, 2022. "Using inferred valuation to quantify survey and social desirability bias in stated preference research," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(4), pages 1224-1242, August.
    9. Will, Christian & Lehmann, Nico & Baumgartner, Nora & Feurer, Sven & Jochem, Patrick & Fichtner, Wolf, 2022. "Consumer understanding and evaluation of carbon-neutral electric vehicle charging services," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 313(C).
    10. Fabio Boncinelli & Andrea Dominici & Federico Bondioni & Enrico Marone, 2024. "Consumers bahavior towards the country of origin labeling policy: The case of the pasta market in Italy," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(1), pages 46-69, January.
    11. Kaat Van Hoyweghen & Janne Bemelmans & Hendrik Feyaerts & Goedele Van den Broeck & Miet Maertens, 2023. "Small Family, Happy Family? Fertility Preferences and the Quantity–Quality Trade-Off in Sub-Saharan Africa," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 42(6), pages 1-35, December.
    12. Harin, Alexander, 2021. "Behavioral economics. Forbidden zones. New method and models," MPRA Paper 106545, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    2. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    3. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    4. Raffaelli, R. & Menapace, L., 2018. "Indirect questioning as a debiasing mechanism in preference elicitation for sustainable food? First evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277039, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    6. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "Testing the effect of changes in elicitation format, payment vehicle and bid range on the hypothetical bias for moral goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 17-32.
    7. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    8. Frondel Manuel & Sommer Stephan & Tomberg Lukas, 2019. "Versorgungssicherheit mit Strom: Empirische Evidenz auf Basis der Inferred-Valuation-Methode," Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 68(1), pages 53-73, May.
    9. Liebe, Ulf & Glenk, Klaus & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie & Spiller, Achim, 2019. "A web survey application of real choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 33(C).
    10. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    11. Lava Yadav & Thomas M. van Rensburg & Hugh Kelley, 2013. "A Comparison Between the Conventional Stated Preference Technique and an Inferred Valuation Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(2), pages 405-422, June.
    12. Helga Fehr-Duda & Robin Schimmelpfennig, 2018. "Wider die Zahlengläubigkeit: Sind Befragungsergebnisse eine gute Grundlage für wirtschaftspolitische Entscheidungen?," ECON - Working Papers 297, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Dec 2018.
    13. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2019. "Reliability and Validity in Nonmarket Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(2), pages 559-582, February.
    14. Lehmann, Nico & Sloot, Daniel & Ardone, Armin & Fichtner, Wolf, 2021. "The limited potential of regional electricity marketing – Results from two discrete choice experiments in Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    15. Mohammed Hussen Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2020. "An analysis of the impacts of tasting experience and peer effects on consumers’ willingness to pay for novel foods," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(4), pages 653-674, October.
    16. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    17. Sahan T. M. Dissanayake & Andrew G. Meyer, 2021. "Incorporating Beliefs and Experiences into Choice Experiment Analysis: Implications for Policy Recommendations," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 823-848, June.
    18. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods," Papers 2102.02945, arXiv.org.
    19. Bartels, Lara & Falk, Thomas & Duche, Vishwambhar & Vollan, Björn, 2022. "Experimental games in transdisciplinary research: The potential importance of individual payments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    20. D. Fang & R. M. Nayga & H. A. Snell & G. H. West & C. Bazzani, 2019. "Evaluating USA’s New Nutrition and Supplement Facts Label: Evidence from a Non-hypothetical Choice Experiment," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 545-562, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:176:y:2020:i:c:p:416-430. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.