Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay

Contents:

Author Info

  • Hensher, David A.
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    There is growing interest in establishing the extent of differences in willingness to pay (WTP) for attributes, such as travel time savings, that are derived from real market settings and hypothetical (to varying degrees) settings. Non-experiment external validity tests involving observation of choice activity in a natural environment, where the individuals do not know they are in an experiment, are rare. In contrast the majority of tests are a test of external validity between hypothetical and actual experiments. Deviation from real market evidence is referred to in the literature broadly as hypothetical bias. The challenge is to identify such bias, and to the extent to which it exists, establishing possible ways to minimise it. This paper reviews the efforts to date to identify and 'calibrate' WTP derived from one or more methods that involve assessment of hypothetical settings, be they (i) contingent valuation methods, (ii) choice experiments involving trading attributes between multiple alternatives, with or without referencing, or (iii) methods involving salient or non-salient incentives linked to actual behaviour. Despite progress in identifying possible contributions to differences in marginal WTP, there is no solid evidence, although plenty of speculation, to explain the differences between all manner of hypothetical experiments and non-experimental evidence. The absence of non-experimental evidence from natural field experiments remains a major barrier to confirmation of under or over-estimation. We find, however, that the role of referencing of an experiment relative to a real experience (including evidence from revealed preference (RP) studies), in the design of choice experiments, appears to offer promise in the derivation of estimates of WTP that have a meaningful link to real market activity, closing the gap between RP and SC WTP outputs.

    Download Info

    If 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.
    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V99-4Y3K10X-1/2/a867e6af1fa820862a47cf2d50432ed9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Transportation Research Part B: Methodological.

    Volume (Year): 44 (2010)
    Issue (Month): 6 (July)
    Pages: 735-752

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:eee:transb:v:44:y:2010:i:6:p:735-752

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/548/description#description

    Order Information:
    Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional
    Web: https://shop.elsevier.com/order?id=548&ref=548_01_ooc_1&version=01

    Related research

    Keywords: Hypothetical bias Willingness to pay Choice experiments Contingent valuation Contextual bias Referencing Revealed behaviour;

    References

    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.:
    as in new window
    1. Carson, Richard T. & Flores, Nicholas E. & Martin, Kerry M. & Wright, Jennifer L., 1995. "Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods," 1995 Conference (39th), February 14-16, 1995, Perth, Australia 148793, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. John A. Fox & Jason F. Shogren & Dermot J. Hayes & James B. Kliebenstein, 1998. "CVM-X: Calibrating Contingent Values with Experimental Auction Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(3), pages 455-465.
    3. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    4. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    5. Brown, Thomas C. & Ajzen, Icek & Hrubes, Daniel, 2003. "Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 353-361, September.
    6. John List & Paramita Sinha & Michael Taylor, 2006. "Using choice experiments to value non-market goods and services: Evidence from field experiments," Natural Field Experiments 00278, The Field Experiments Website.
    7. David Aadland & Arthur J. Caplan, 2003. "Willingness to Pay for Curbside Recycling with Detection and Mitigation of Hypothetical Bias," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(2), pages 492-502.
    8. repec:feb:framed:0073 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Glenn Harrison, 2006. "Experimental Evidence on Alternative Environmental Valuation Methods," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 125-162, 05.
    10. Harrison, Glenn W. & Rutström, E. Elisabet, 2008. "Experimental Evidence on the Existence of Hypothetical Bias in Value Elicitation Methods," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier.
    11. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, 03.
    12. David Hensher, 2002. "A Systematic Assessment of the Environmental Impacts of Transport Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 185-217, June.
    13. Vivien Foster & Ian J. Bateman & David Harley, 1997. "Real And Hypothetical Willingness To Pay For Environmental Preservation: A Non-Experimental Comparison," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1-3), pages 123-137.
    14. Ronald G. Cummings & Laura Osborne Taylor, 1998. "Does Realism Matter in Contingent Valuation Surveys?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 203-215.
    15. Isacsson, Gunnar, 2007. "The trade off between time and money: Is there a difference between real and hypothetical choices?," Working Papers 2007:3, Swedish National Road & Transport Research Institute (VTI).
    16. Rose, John M. & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A. & Collins, Andrew T., 2008. "Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 395-406, May.
    17. Cummings, Ronald G & Harrison, Glenn W & Rutstrom, E Elisabet, 1995. "Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 260-66, March.
    18. Ghosh, Arindam, 2001. "Valuing Time and Reliability: Commuters' Mode Choice from a Real Time Congestion Pricing Experiment," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt9fz0z9kq, University of California Transportation Center.
    19. 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.
    20. Steimetz, Seiji S.C. & Brownstone, David, 2005. "Estimating commuters' "value of time" with noisy data: a multiple imputation approach," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 865-889, December.
    21. Brownstone, David & Small, Kenneth A., 2003. "Valuing Time and Reliability: Assessing the Evidence from Road Pricing Demonstrations," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt95z0p35k, University of California Transportation Center.
    22. Johansson-Stenman , Olof & Svedsäter, Henrik, 2003. "Self Image And Choice Experiments: Hypothetical And Actual Willingness To Pay," Working Papers in Economics 94, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    23. David A. Hensher, 2008. "Joint Estimation of Process and Outcome in Choice Experiments and Implications for Willingness to Pay," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and University of Bath, vol. 42(2), pages 297-322, May.
    24. Mauricio Sillano & Juan de Dios Ort�zar, 2005. "Willingness-to-pay estimation with mixed logit models: some new evidence," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 37(3), pages 525-550, March.
    25. 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.
    26. Gilboa,Itzhak & Schmeidler,David, 2001. "A Theory of Case-Based Decisions," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521003117, April.
    27. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 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.
    28. Swait, Joffre, 2001. "A non-compensatory choice model incorporating attribute cutoffs," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 903-928, November.
    29. Train, Kenneth & Wilson, Wesley W., 2008. "Estimation on stated-preference experiments constructed from revealed-preference choices," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 191-203, March.
    30. Johannesson, Magnus, et al, 1999. "Calibrating Hypothetical Willingness to Pay Responses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 21-32, April.
    31. Paul R. Portney, 1994. "The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 3-17, Fall.
    32. 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.
    33. Craig Landry & John List, 2007. "Using ex ante approaches to obtain credible signals for value in contingent markets: Evidence from the field," Framed Field Experiments 00168, The Field Experiments Website.
    34. Fujii, Satoshi & Gärling, Tommy, 2003. "Application of attitude theory for improved predictive accuracy of stated preference methods in travel demand analysis," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 389-402, May.
    35. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Poe, Gregory L. & Ethier, Robert G. & Schulze, William D., 2002. "Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 391-425, November.
    36. Jayson Lusk & T Schroeder, 2004. "Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks," Artefactual Field Experiments 00096, The Field Experiments Website.
    37. 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.
    38. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2007. "Heteroscedastic control for random coefficients and error components in mixed logit," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 610-623, September.
    39. Frykblom, Peter, 1997. "Hypothetical Question Modes and Real Willingness to Pay," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 275-287, November.
    40. David A. Hensher, 2001. "Measurement of the Valuation of Travel Time Savings," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and University of Bath, vol. 35(1), pages 71-98, January.
    41. James Murphy & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "Is Cheap Talk Effective at Eliminating Hypothetical Bias in a Provision Point Mechanism?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 327-343, 03.
    42. Steimetz, Seiji S.C., 2008. "Defensive driving and the external costs of accidents and travel delays," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 703-724, November.
    43. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2001. "Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?: Application to the Valuation of the Environment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 179-192, March.
    44. John A. List, 2001. "Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1498-1507, December.
    45. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    46. Gro Steine & Kari Kolstad, 2006. "Consumers' Willingness to Pay for the Color of Salmon: A Choice Experiment with Real Economic Incentives," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 1050-1061.
    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 in new window

    Cited by:
    This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transb:v:44:y:2010:i:6:p:735-752. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).

    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.