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! ]

What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
John List
Craig Gallet ()

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

Abstract

Preferences elicited in hypothetical settings have recently come underscrutiny, causing estimates from the contingent valuation method to bechallenged due to perceived ``hypothetical bias.'' Given that the receivedliterature derives value estimates using heterogeneous experimentaltechniques, understanding the effects of important design parameters onthe magnitude of hypothetical bias is invaluable. In this paper, we addressthis issue statistically by using a meta-analysis to examine data from 29experimental studies. Our empirical findings suggest that on averagesubjects overstate their preferences by a factor of about 3 in hypotheticalsettings, and that the degree of over-revelation is influenced by thedistinction between willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept, publicversus private goods, and several elicitation methods. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

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://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1012791822804
File Format: text/html
File Function:
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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.

Publisher Info
Article provided by European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists in its journal Environmental and Resource Economics.

Volume (Year): 20 (2001)
Issue (Month): 3 (November)
Pages: 241-254
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:20:y:2001:i:3:p:241-254

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100263

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).

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

Other versions of this item:

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. List, John A & Shogren, Jason F, 1998. "The Deadweight Loss of Christmas: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1350-55, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Richard A. Hofler & John A. List, 2004. "Valuation on the Frontier: Calibrating Actual and Hypothetical Statements of Value," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, American Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 213-221, 02. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  3. Espey, Molly, 1998. "Gasoline demand revisited: an international meta-analysis of elasticities," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 273-295, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. Coursey, Don L & Hovis, John L & Schulze, William D, 1987. "The Disparity between Willingness to Accept and Willingness to Pay Measures of Value," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 102(3), pages 679-90, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. Bohm, Peter, 1972. "Estimating demand for public goods: An experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 111-130. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. John Loomis & Thomas Brown & Beatrice Lucero & George Peterson, 1997. "Evaluating the Validity of the Dichotomous Choice Question Format in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 109-123, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  7. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  8. Johannesson, Magnus & Liljas, Bengt & Johansson, Per-Olov, 1998. "An Experimental Comparison of Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions and Real Purchase Decisions," Applied Economics, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 643-47, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  9. 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.
  10. Kalle Seip & Jon Strand, 1992. "Willingness to pay for environmental goods in Norway: A contingent valuation study with real payment," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(1), pages 91-106, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  11. 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:
  12. Diamond, Peter A & Hausman, Jerry A, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  13. Edward Balistreri & Gary McClelland & Gregory Poe & William Schulze, 2001. "Can Hypothetical Questions Reveal True Values? A Laboratory Comparison of Dichotomous Choice and Open-Ended Contingent Values with Auction Values," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 18(3), pages 275-292, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  14. Smith, V. Kerry & Mansfield, Carol, 1998. "Buying Time: Real and Hypothetical Offers," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 209-224, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  15. John A. List & J. Shogren, 1998. "Calibration of the difference between actual and hypothetical valuations in a field experiment," Framed Field Experiments 0038, The Field Experiments Website. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  16. Kealy, Mary Jo & Montgomery, Mark & Dovidio, John F., 1990. "Reliability and predictive validity of contingent values: Does the nature of the good matter?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 244-263, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  17. Grether, David M & Plott, Charles R, 1979. "Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 623-38, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  18. Fox, John A. & Shogren, Jason F. & Hayes, Dermot J. & Kliebenstein, James B., 1999. "CVM-X: Calibrating Contingent Values with Experimental Auction Markets," Staff General Research Papers 1311, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    Other versions:
  19. 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, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 48(1-3), pages 123-137. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  20. Frykblom, Peter, 2000. "Willingness to Pay and the Choice of Question Format: Experimental Results," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 7(10), pages 665-67, October. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  21. 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.
  22. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  23. Tim Jeppesen & John A. List & Henk Folmer, 2002. "Environmental Regulations and New Plant Location Decisions: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis," Journal of Regional Science, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 42(1), pages 19-49. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  24. Brookshire, David S & Coursey, Don L, 1987. "Measuring the Value of a Public Good: An Empirical Comparison of Elicitation Procedures," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(4), pages 554-66, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  25. Sinden, J.A., 1988. "Empirical Tests Of Hypothetical Bias In Consumers' Surplus Surveys," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 32(02-03). [Downloadable!]
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.)
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page.
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? You can use IDEAS to provide links to papers and articles in your course syllabus.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-7.

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.