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! ]

Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
J.L. Lusk
T.C. Schroeder

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

Abstract

This study compares hypothetical and nonhypothetical responses to choice experiment questions. We test for hypothetical bias in a choice experiment involving beef ribeye steaks with differing quality attributes. In general, hypothetical responses predicted higher probabilities of purchasing beef steaks than nonhypothetical resposnes. Thus, hypothetical choices overestimate total willingness-to-pay for beef steaks. However, marginal willingness-to-pay for a change in steak quality is, in general, not statistically different across hypothetical and actual payment settings.

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://karlan.yale.edu/fieldexperiments/pdf/Lusk%20and%20Schroeder_Are%20Choice%20Experiments%20Incentive%20Compatible_A%20Test%20with%20Quality%20Differentiated%20Beef%20Steaks.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by The Field Experiments Website in its series Artefactual Field Experiments with number 0067.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length: 16 pages
Date of creation: 2004
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:feb:artefa:0067

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.fieldexperiments.com

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Trevor Gallen).

Related research
Keywords: CVM; conjoint analysis; heteroskedastic extreme value model; hypothetical bias; multinomial probit; random parameters logit.;

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. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-19, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  3. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
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? RePEc and its associated services are free for contributors and users, and do not accept any advertising.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-25.

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.