Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

'Pocket and Pot': Hypothetical Bias in a No-Free-Riding Public Contribution Game

Contents:

Author Info

  • Gubanova, Tatiana
  • Adamowicz, Wiktor L.
  • McMillan, Melville

Abstract

Hypothetical bias arises when values which people say they place on a good or service differ systematically from the values people reveal for the same good or service through actual, binding economic transactions. Studies of hypothetical bias with respect to public goods often use charitable contributions or other relatively unique goods and these studies employ a variety of mechanisms to elicit the stated and revealed values. This study proposes the inclusion of a free-rider barring random dictatorship mechanism in the standard public contribution game to investigate the issue of bias when a public good involves immediate monetary returns to subjects. Steps are taken to make the game have the look and feel of a real world trade-off between private investment and public good provision. Data for the experiment were collected using a sample of students from the University of Alberta. A statistically significant negative hypothetical bias is found for the first hypothetical and the first real rounds of the game. The bias decays in subsequent round pairs, oscillating around zero.

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://purl.umn.edu/91403
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology in its series Staff Paper Series with number 91403.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: 2009
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ags:ualbsp:91403

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 515 General Services Building, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AlbertaT6G 2H1
Phone: (780) 492-4225
Fax: (780) 492-0268
Email:
Web page: http://www.rees.ualberta.ca/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: Hypothetical bias; public contribution game; random dictatorship; Environmental Economics and Policy; C72; C91; D80;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

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. Erwin Bulte & Shelby Gerking & John List & Aart de Zeeuw, 2004. "The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated wtp values: Evidence from a field study," Framed Field Experiments 00134, The Field Experiments Website.
  2. 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.
  3. Champ, Patricia A. & Bishop, Richard C. & Brown, Thomas C. & McCollum, Daniel W., 1997. "Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 151-162, June.
  4. List, John A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1998. "Calibration of the difference between actual and hypothetical valuations in a field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 193-205, October.
  5. Helen R. Neill & Ronald G. Cummings & Philip T. Ganderton & Glenn W. Harrison & Thomas McGuckin, 1994. "Hypothetical Surveys and Real Economic Commitments," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(2), pages 145-154.
  6. Smith, V. Kerry & Mansfield, Carol, 1996. "Buying Time: Real and Hypothetical Offers," Discussion Papers dp-97-09, Resources For the Future.
  7. David Aadland & Arthur Caplan & Owen Phillips, 2007. "A Bayesian examination of information and uncertainty in contingent valuation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 149-178, October.
  8. Champ, Patricia A. & Moore, Rebecca & Bishop, Richard C., 2004. "Hypothetical Bias: The Mitigating Effects Of Certainty Questions And Cheap Talk," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 19951, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  9. Patricia Champ & Richard Bishop, 2001. "Donation Payment Mechanisms and Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(4), pages 383-402, August.
  10. Brown, Kelly M. & Taylor, Laura O., 2000. "Do as you say, say as you do: evidence on gender differences in actual and stated contributions to public goods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 127-139, September.
  11. Bohm, Peter, 1972. "Estimating demand for public goods: An experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 111-130.
  12. Andreoni, James, 1990. "Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(401), pages 464-77, June.
  13. Dutta, Bhaskar & Peters, Hans & Sen, Arunava, 2002. "Strategy-Proof Probabilistic Mechanisms in Economies with Pure Public Goods," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 392-416, October.
  14. Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Liljas & Per-Olov Johansson, 1998. "An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions and real purchase decisions," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 643-647.
  15. Griffin, Charles C, et al, 1995. "Contingent Valuation and Actual Behavior: Predicting Connections to New Water Systems in the State of Kerala, India," World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 9(3), pages 373-95, September.
  16. Sinden, Jack 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).
  17. 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.
  18. Gibbard, Allan, 1977. "Manipulation of Schemes That Mix Voting with Chance," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(3), pages 665-81, April.
  19. Bagnoli, Mark & Ben-David, Shaul & McKee, Michael, 1992. "Voluntary provision of public goods : The multiple unit case," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 85-106, February.
  20. McClelland, Gary H & Schulze, William D & Coursey, Don L, 1993. " Insurance for Low-Probability Hazards: A Bimodal Response to Unlikely Events," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 95-116, August.
  21. Prince, Raymond & McKee, Michael & Ben-David, Shaul & Bagnoli, Mark, 1992. "Improving the contingent valuation method: Implementing the contribution game," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 78-90, July.
  22. Wiktor Adamowicz & J. Deshazo, 2006. "Frontiers in Stated Preferences Methods: An Introduction," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 1-6, 05.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. Dickie, M. & Fisher, A. & Gerking, S.D., 1987. "Market transactions and hypothetical demand data: A comparative study," Open Access publications from Tilburg University urn:nbn:nl:ui:12-4628501, Tilburg University.
  26. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 153-174, Spring.
  27. Bulte, E.H. & Gerking, S.D. & List, J.A. & Zeeuw, A.J. de, 2005. "The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated values: Evidence from a field study," Open Access publications from Tilburg University urn:nbn:nl:ui:12-167602, Tilburg University.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. Fischhoff, Baruch & Furby, Lita, 1988. " Measuring Values: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Transactions with Special Reference to Contingent Valuation of Visibility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 147-84, June.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

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:ags:ualbsp:91403. 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: (AgEcon Search).

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.