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

Experimental Results on Expressed Certainty and Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation

Contents:

Author Info

  • Karen Blumenschein
  • Magnus Johannesson
  • Glenn C. Blomquist
  • Bengt Liljas
  • Richard M. O’Conor

Abstract

Use of the contingent valuation method is controversial among economists because it is based on hypothetical rather than real choices. Previous experiments have suggested that the commonly used dichotomous choice contingent valuation method leads to hypothetical bias, i.e., overestimates the real willingness to pay. We carried out an experiment to compare the dichotomous choice contingent valuation method with real purchase decisions for a consumer good. We confirm previous findings that hypothetical yes responses overestimate real purchase decisions, but we cannot reject the null hypothesis that definitely sure yes responses correspond to real purchase decisions.

Download Info

To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by Southern Economic Association in its journal Southern Economic Journal.

Volume (Year): 65 (1998)
Issue (Month): 1 (July)
Pages: 169-177

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:sej:ancoec:v:65:1:y:1998:p:169-177

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.southerneconomic.org/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords:

References

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

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:sej:ancoec:v:65:1:y:1998:p:169-177. 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: (Laura Razzolini).

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.