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! ]

Cognitive Dissonance as a Means of Reducing Hypothetical Bias

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Alfnes, Frode
Yue, Chengyan
Jensen, Helen H.

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

Abstract

Hypothetical bias is a persistent problem in stated preference studies. We propose and test a method for reducing hypothetical bias based on the cognitive dissonance literature in social psychology. A central element of this literature is that people prefer not to take inconsistent stands and will change their attitudes and behavior to make them consistent. We find that participants in a stated preference willingness-to-pay study, when told that a nonhypothetical study of similar goods would follow, state significantly lower willingness to pay than participants not so informed. In other words, participants adjust their stated willingness to pay to avoid cognitive dissonance from taking inconsistent stands on their willingness to pay for the good being offered.

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://www.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13033.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Iowa State University, Department of Economics in its series Staff General Research Papers with number 13033.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 23 Feb 2009
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:isu:genres:13033

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Iowa State University, Dept. of Economics, 260 Heady Hall, Ames, IA 50011-1070
Phone: +1 515.294.6741
Fax: +1 515.294.0221
Email:
Web page: http://www.econ.iastate.edu
More information through EDIRC

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

Related research
Keywords: apples; cognitive consistency; hypothetical bias; instrument calibration; willingness to pay.;

Other versions of this item:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports: 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. Christopher G. Leggett & Naomi S. Kleckner & Kevin J. Boyle & John W. Dufield & Robert Cameron Mitchell, 2003. "Social Desirability Bias in Contingent Valuation Surveys Administered Through In-Person Interviews," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(4), pages 561-575. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. 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)
  3. Fisher, Robert J, 1993. " Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning," Journal of Consumer Research: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, University of Chicago Press, vol. 20(2), pages 303-15, September.
  4. repec:cup:cbooks:9780521855167 is not listed on IDEAS
  5. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, American Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482, 05. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. repec:bep:eaptop:v:8:y:2008:i:1:p:1898-1898 is not listed on IDEAS
  7. repec:cup:cbooks:9780521671248 is not listed on IDEAS
  8. 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:
  9. Murphy, James J. & Stevens, Thomas H., 2004. "Contingent Valuation, Hypothetical Bias, and Experimental Economics," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 33(2), October. [Downloadable!]
  10. J.L. Lusk & T.C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," Artefactual Field Experiments 0067, The Field Experiments Website. [Downloadable!]
  11. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  12. Knut Veisten & Ståle Navrud, 2006. "Contingent valuation and actual payment for voluntarily provided passive-use values: Assessing the effect of an induced truth-telling mechanism and elicitation formats," Applied Economics, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 38(7), pages 735-756, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  13. Frode Alfnes & Atle G. Guttormsen & Gro Steine & Kari Kolstad, 2006. "Consumers' Willingness to Pay for the Color of Salmon: A Choice Experiment with Real Economic Incentives," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, American Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 1050-1061, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  14. Karen Blumenschein & GlennC. Blomquist & Magnus Johannesson & Nancy Horn & Patricia Freeman, 2008. "Eliciting Willingness to Pay Without Bias: Evidence from a Field Experiment," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 114-137, 01. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  15. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  16. 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)
  17. Ronald G. Cummings & Laura O. Taylor, 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  18. Glenn Harrison, 2006. "Experimental Evidence on Alternative Environmental Valuation Methods," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 125-162, 05. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? Apart from a small start up grant in the 1990's, RePEc has received no funding and lives on the help of volunteers.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-21.

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.