IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v30y2021i5p1095-1123.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stated versus revealed preferences: An approach to reduce bias

Author

Listed:
  • Kaat de Corte
  • John Cairns
  • Richard Grieve

Abstract

Stated preference (SP) survey responses may not predict actual behavior, leading to hypothetical bias. We developed an approach that harnesses large‐scale routine data to help SP surveys provide more accurate estimates of revealed preferences (RPs), within a study which elicited preferences for alternative changes to the blood service in England. The SP survey responses were used to predict the mean number of annual whole blood donations. Ex ante, the iterative survey design estimated hypothetical bias by contrasting pilot SP survey responses (N = 1254), with individually linked data on RPs, to inform the main SP survey design (N = 25,187). Ex post, the analysis recognized mediation of the relationship between SP and RP when blood donation is deferred. The pilot survey reported that donors' intended donation frequency of 3.2 (men) and 2.6 (women) times per year, exceeded their actual frequency by 41% and 30% respectively. Choice scenario attributes for the main SP survey were then modified, and over‐prediction subsequently decreased to 34% for men and 16% for women. The mediating effect of deferrals explained 29% (men) and 86% (women) of the residual discrepancy between SP and RP. Future studies can use this approach to reduce hypothetical bias, and provide more accurate predictions for decision‐making.

Suggested Citation

  • Kaat de Corte & John Cairns & Richard Grieve, 2021. "Stated versus revealed preferences: An approach to reduce bias," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(5), pages 1095-1123, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:30:y:2021:i:5:p:1095-1123
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.4246
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.4246
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.4246?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Craig D. Broadbent, 2014. "Evaluating mitigation and calibration techniques for hypothetical bias in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(12), pages 1831-1848, December.
    2. Jones, A., 2007. "Applied Econometrics for Health Economists: A Practical Guide," Monographs, Office of Health Economics, number 000262.
    3. Norwood, F. Bailey, 2005. "Can Calibration Reconcile Stated and Observed Preferences?," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(1), pages 237-248, April.
    4. John C. Whitehead & Melissa S. Weddell & Peter A. Groothuis, 2016. "Mitigating Hypothetical Bias In Stated Preference Data: Evidence From Sports Tourism," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(1), pages 605-611, January.
    5. Tami L. Mark & Joffre Swait, 2004. "Using stated preference and revealed preference modeling to evaluate prescribing decisions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(6), pages 563-573, June.
    6. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
    7. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John & Greaves, Stephen, 2014. "Hypothetical bias in Stated Choice Experiments: Is it a problem? And if so, how do we deal with it?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 164-177.
    8. Whitehead, John C. & Cherry, Todd L., 2007. "Willingness to pay for a Green Energy program: A comparison of ex-ante and ex-post hypothetical bias mitigation approaches," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 247-261, November.
    9. Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard & Gillian Currie, 2012. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 41, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Caussade, Sebastián & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Rizzi, Luis I. & Hensher, David A., 2005. "Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 621-640, August.
    11. Buckell, John & Hess, Stephane, 2019. "Stubbing out hypothetical bias: improving tobacco market predictions by combining stated and revealed preference data," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 93-102.
    12. Esther W. de Bekker‐Grob & Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard, 2012. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 145-172, February.
    13. Loomis, John B., 2014. "2013 WAEA Keynote Address: Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(1), pages 1-13, April.
    14. Joanna Coast & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Eileen J. Sutton & Susan A. Horrocks & A. Jane Vosper & Dawn R. Swancutt & Terry N. Flynn, 2012. "Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 730-741, June.
    15. Emily Lancsar & Denzil G. Fiebig & Arne Risa Hole, 2017. "Discrete Choice Experiments: A Guide to Model Specification, Estimation and Software," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(7), pages 697-716, July.
    16. Fredrik Carlsson, 2010. "Design of Stated Preference Surveys: Is There More to Learn from Behavioral Economics?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(2), pages 167-177, June.
    17. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923.
    18. Admassu N. Lamu & Jan Abel Olsen, 2018. "Yes, health is important, but as much for its importance via social life: The direct and indirect effects of health on subjective well‐being in chronically ill individuals," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 209-222, January.
    19. Emily Lancsar & Joffre Swait, 2014. "Reconceptualising the External Validity of Discrete Choice Experiments," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(10), pages 951-965, October.
    20. 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.
    21. Peter Ghijben & Emily Lancsar & Silva Zavarsek, 2014. "Preferences for Oral Anticoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation: a Best–Best Discrete Choice Experiment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(11), pages 1115-1127, November.
    22. John Whitehead, 2005. "Environmental Risk and Averting Behavior: Predictive Validity of Jointly Estimated Revealed and Stated Behavior Data," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(3), pages 301-316, November.
    23. John Loomis, 2011. "What'S To Know About Hypothetical Bias In Stated Preference Valuation Studies?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 363-370, April.
    24. Matthew Quaife & Fern Terris-Prestholt & Gian Luca Di Tanna & Peter Vickerman, 2018. "How well do discrete choice experiments predict health choices? A systematic review and meta-analysis of external validity," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(8), pages 1053-1066, November.
    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. Zanchini, Raffaele & Blanc, Simone & Pippinato, Liam & Poratelli, Francesca & Bruzzese, Stefano & Brun, Filippo, 2022. "Enhancing wood products through ENplus, FSC and PEFC certifications: Which attributes do consumers value the most?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    2. Lasse Alajärvi & Aku-Ville Lehtimäki & Johanna Timonen & Janne Martikainen, 2022. "Willingness to Pay for Implementation of an Environmentally Friendly Pharmaceutical Policy in Finland—A Discrete Choice Experiment Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-13, May.
    3. David A. J. Meester & Stephane Hess & John Buckell & Thomas O. Hancock, 2023. "Can decision field theory enhance our understanding of health‐based choices? Evidence from risky health behaviors," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(8), pages 1710-1732, August.
    4. Rafaï, Ismaël & Blayac, Thierry & Dubois, Dimitri & Duchêne, Sébastien & Nguyen-Van, Phu & Ventelou, Bruno & Willinger, Marc, 2023. "Stated preferences outperform elicited preferences for predicting reported compliance with COVID-19 prophylactic measures," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    5. Gabriella Vindigni & Iuri Peri & Federica Consentino & Roberta Selvaggi & Daniela Spina, 2022. "Exploring Consumers’ Attitudes towards Food Products Derived by New Plant Breeding Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-14, May.
    6. Wei Li & Chanam Lee & Samuel D. Towne & Sinan Zhong & Jiahe Bian & Hanwool Lee & Sungmin Lee & Xuemei Zhu & Youngre Noh & Yang Song & Marcia G. Ory, 2024. "Building Sustainable and Connected Communities by Addressing Public Transportation’s First-Mile Problem: Insights from a Stated Preference Survey in El Paso, Texas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-23, February.
    7. Sun, Sizhong, 2022. "The demand for a COVID-19 vaccine," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).

    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 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).
    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. Buckell, John & Hess, Stephane, 2019. "Stubbing out hypothetical bias: improving tobacco market predictions by combining stated and revealed preference data," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 93-102.
    4. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John M., 2016. "Can you ever be certain? Reducing hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments via respondent reported choice certaintyAuthor-Name: Beck, Matthew J," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 149-167.
    5. de Bekker-Grob, E.W. & Donkers, B. & Bliemer, M.C.J. & Veldwijk, J. & Swait, J.D., 2020. "Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Galárraga, Omar & Kuo, Caroline & Mtukushe, Bulelwa & Maughan-Brown, Brendan & Harrison, Abigail & Hoare, Jackie, 2020. "iSAY (incentives for South African youth): Stated preferences of young people living with HIV," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    8. 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.
    9. Matthew Quaife & Fern Terris-Prestholt & Gian Luca Di Tanna & Peter Vickerman, 2018. "How well do discrete choice experiments predict health choices? A systematic review and meta-analysis of external validity," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(8), pages 1053-1066, November.
    10. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    11. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    12. Huls, Samare P.I. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W., 2022. "Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data? The role of model complexity in a discrete choice experiment about colorectal cancer screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    13. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    14. John Buckell & Vrinda Vasavada & Sarah Wordsworth & Dean A. Regier & Matthew Quaife, 2022. "Utility maximization versus regret minimization in health choice behavior: Evidence from four datasets," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 363-381, February.
    15. Atozou, Baoubadi & Tamini, Lota D. & Bergeronm, Stephane & Doyon, Maurice, 2020. "Factors Explaining the Hypothetical Bias: How to Improve Models for Meta-Analyses," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 45(2), March.
    16. Milte, Rachel & Huynh, Elisabeth & Ratcliffe, Julie, 2019. "Assessing quality of care in nursing homes using discrete choice experiments: How does the level of cognitive functioning impact upon older people's preferences?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 238(C), pages 1-1.
    17. Buckell, John & White, Justin S. & Shang, Ce, 2020. "Can incentive-compatibility reduce hypothetical bias in smokers’ experimental choice behavior? A randomized discrete choice experiment," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    18. Viberg Johansson, Jennifer & Shah, Nisha & Haraldsdóttir, Eik & Bentzen, Heidi Beate & Coy, Sarah & Kaye, Jane & Mascalzoni, Deborah & Veldwijk, Jorien, 2021. "Governance mechanisms for sharing of health data: An approach towards selecting attributes for complex discrete choice experiment studies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    19. Krah, Kwabena & Michelson, Hope & Perge, Emilie & Jindal, Rohit, 2019. "Constraints to adopting soil fertility management practices in Malawi: A choice experiment approach," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 1-1.
    20. John C. Whitehead & Daniel K. Lew, 2020. "Estimating recreation benefits through joint estimation of revealed and stated preference discrete choice data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 58(4), pages 2009-2029, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:hlthec:v:30:y:2021:i:5:p:1095-1123. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.