Do People Always Pay Less Than They Say? Testbed Laboratory Experiments with IV and HG Values
Hypothetical bias is a long-standing issue in stated preference and contingent valuation studies – people generally overstate their preferences when they do not experience the real monetary consequences of their decision. This view, however, has been challenged by recent evidence based on the elicitation of induced values (IV) in the lab and homegrown (HG) demand function from different countries. This paper uses a two experiments design to assess the extent and relevance of hypothetical bias in demand elicitation exercises for both IV and HG values. For testbed purpose, we use a classic second-price auction to elicit preferences. Comparing the demand curve we elicit in both, hypothetical bias unambiguously (i) vanishes in an induced-value, private good context, and (ii) persists in homegrown values elicitation context. This suggests hypothetical bias in preference elicitation appears to be driven by “preference formation” rather than “preference elicitation”. In addition, companion treatments highlight two sources of the discrepancy observed in the HG setting: the hypothetical context leads bidders to underestimate the constraints imposed by their budget limitations, whereas the real context creates pressure leading them to bid “zero” to opt out from the elicitation mechanism. As a result, there is a need for a demand elicitation procedure that helps subjects take the valuation exercise sincerely, but without putting extra pressure on them.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 13 (2011)
Issue (Month): 5 (October)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1097-3923|
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/subs.asp?ref=1097-3923|
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.:
- Taylor, Laura O. & McKee, Michael & Laury, Susan K. & Cummings, Ronald G., 2001. "Induced-value tests of the referendum voting mechanism," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 61-65, April.
- Schlapfer, Felix, 2008.
"Contingent valuation: A new perspective,"
Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 729-740, February.
- Jacquemet, Nicolas & Joule, Robert-Vincent & Luchini, Stéphane & Shogren, Jason F., 2009.
"Earned wealth, engaged bidders? Evidence from a second-price auction,"
Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 36-38, October.
- Nicolas Jacquemet & Stephane Luchini & Robert-Vincent Joule & Jason Shogren, 2008. "Earned Wealth, Engaged Bidders? Evidence from a second price auction," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00277283, HAL.
- Nicolas Jacquemet & Robert-Vincent Joule & Stephane Luchini & Jason Shogren, 2009. "Earned wealth, engaged bidders? Evidence from a second price auction," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00429894, HAL.
- James J. Murphy & Thomas H. Stevens & Lava Yadav, 2010.
"A Comparison of Induced Value and Home-Grown Value Experiments to Test for Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation,"
2010-06, University of Alaska Anchorage, Department of Economics.
- James Murphy & Thomas Stevens & Lava Yadav, 2010. "A Comparison of Induced Value and Home-Grown Value Experiments to Test for Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(1), pages 111-123, September.
- Rolando Guzman & Charles Kolstad, 2007. "Researching Preferences, Valuation and Hypothetical Bias," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(3), pages 465-487, July.
- 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.
- Greiner, Ben, 2004. "An Online Recruitment System for Economic Experiments," MPRA Paper 13513, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- 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.
- Shogren, Jason F., 2006. "Experimental Methods and Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 19, pages 969-1027 Elsevier.
- Craig E. Landry & John A. List, 2007.
"Using Ex Ante Approaches to Obtain Credible Signals for Value in Contingent Markets: Evidence from the Field,"
American Journal of Agricultural Economics,
Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(2), pages 420-429.
- Craig Landry & John List, 2007. "Using ex ante approaches to obtain credible signals for value in contingent markets: Evidence from the field," Framed Field Experiments 00168, The Field Experiments Website.
- 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.
- Christian Vossler & Michael McKee, 2006. "Induced-Value Tests of Contingent Valuation Elicitation Mechanisms," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 35(2), pages 137-168, October.
- Collins, Jill P. & Vossler, Christian A., 2009. "Incentive compatibility tests of choice experiment value elicitation questions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 226-235, September.
- Johannesson, Magnus & Blomquist, Glenn C. & Blumenschein, Karen & Johansson, Per-olov & Liljas, Bengt & O'Conor, Richard M., 1999. "Calibrating Hypothetical Willingness to Pay Responses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 21-32, April.
- John List & Jason Shogren, 1998.
"Calibration of the difference between actual and hypothetical valuations in a field experiment,"
Natural Field Experiments
00296, The Field Experiments Website.
- 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.
- Anthony Burton & Katherine Carson & Susan Chilton & W. Hutchinson, 2007. "Resolving questions about bias in real and hypothetical referenda," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(4), pages 513-525, December.
- Mariah D. Ehmke & Jayson L. Lusk & John A. List, 2008.
"Is Hypothetical Bias a Universal Phenomenon? A Multinational Investigation,"
University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(3), pages 489-500.
- Mariah Ehmke & John List & Jayson Lusk, 2008. "Is hypothetical bias a universal phenomenon? A multinational investigation," Artefactual Field Experiments 00041, The Field Experiments Website.
- Todd Cherry & Peter Frykblom & Jason Shogren & John List & Melonie Sullivan, 2004.
"Laboratory Testbeds and Non-Market Valuation: The Case of Bidding Behavior in a Second-Price Auction with an Outside Option,"
Environmental & Resource Economics,
Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(3), pages 285-294, November.
- Todd L. Cherry & Peter Frykblom & John List & Jason Shogren & Melonie Williams, 2002. "Laboratory Testbeds and Nonmarket Valuation: The Case of Bidding Behavior in a Second Price Auction with an Outside Option," Working Papers 02-13, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
- Glenn W. Harrison & Ronald M. Harstad & E. Elisabet Rutstr–m, 2004.
"Experimental Methods and Elicitation of Values,"
Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(2), pages 123-140, 06.
- James Murphy & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "Is Cheap Talk Effective at Eliminating Hypothetical Bias in a Provision Point Mechanism?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 327-343, 03.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jpbect:v:13:y:2011:i:5:p:857-882. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing)or (Christopher F. Baum)
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.