IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Can Calibration Reconcile Stated and Observed Preferences?

  • Norwood, F. Bailey
Registered author(s):

    Hypothetical bias is a pervasive problem in stated-preference experiments. Recent research has developed two empirically successful calibrations to remove hypothetical bias, though the calibrations have not been tested using the same data or in a conjoint analysis. This study compares the two calibrations in a conjoint analysis involving donations to a public good. Results find the calibrations are biased predictors of true donations but that calibrated and uncalibrated models together provide upper and lower bounds to true donations.

    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/43735
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by Southern Agricultural Economics Association in its journal Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

    Volume (Year): 37 (2005)
    Issue (Month): 01 (April)
    Pages:

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:ags:joaaec:43735
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.saea.org/jaae/jaae.htm

    More information through EDIRC

    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. 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.
    2. Winn, Chris & Norwood, F. Bailey & Chung, Chanjin & Ward, Clement E., 2004. "Surveying the Feasibility of a Voluntary Beef Checkoff," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20385, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Ethier, Robert G. & Poe, Gregory L. & Vossler, Christian A. & Welsh, Michael P., 2001. "Payment Certainty in Discrete Choice Contigent Valuation Responses: Results from a Field Validity Test," Working Papers 127668, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    4. Blumenschein, Karen & Johannesson, Magnus & Yokoyama, Krista K. & Freeman, Patricia R., 2001. "Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 441-457, May.
    5. 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.
    6. Norwood, F. Bailey & Lusk, Jayson L. & Brorsen, B. Wade, 2004. "Model Selection for Discrete Dependent Variables: Better Statistics for Better Steaks," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(03), December.
    7. Karen Blumenschein & Magnus Johannesson & Glenn C. Blomquist & Bengt Liljas & Richard M. O’Conor, 1998. "Experimental Results on Expressed Certainty and Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 65(1), pages 169-177, July.
    8. Messer, Kent D. & Kaiser, Harry M. & Schulze, William D., 2004. "Status Quo Bias and Voluntary Contributions: Can Lab Experiments Parallel Real World Outcomes for Generic Advertising?," Research Bulletins 122094, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    9. Gregory Poe & Jeremy Clark & Daniel Rondeau & William Schulze, 2002. "Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(1), pages 105-131, September.
    10. John List & Richard Hofler, 2004. "Valuation on the frontier: Calibrating actual and hypothetical statements of value," Framed Field Experiments 00159, The Field Experiments Website.
    11. Nouhoun Coulibaly & B. Wade Brorsen, 1999. "Explaining the differences between two previous meat generic advertising studies," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 501-515.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:joaaec:43735. 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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.