IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/caa/jnlage/v62y2016i8id174-2015-agricecon.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing the effectiveness of the oath script in reducing the hypothetical bias in the Contingent Valuation Method

Author

Listed:
  • Tiziana DE-MAGISTRIS

    (Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria de Aragón (CITA), Gobierno de Aragón, Zaragoza, Spain and Instituto Agroalimentario de Aragón-IA2, (CITA-Universidad de Zaragoza), Zaragoza, Spain)

  • Faical AKAICHI

    (Land Economy Environment and Society, Scotland's Rural College (SRUC), Edinburgh, United Kingdom)

  • Kamel BEN YOUSSEF

    (Université Paris Quest Nanterre La Défense, UFR-SEGMI, Nanterre, France)

Abstract

The objective of the study is to investigate the effect of the oath script (HO) in an hypothetical Contingent Valuation survey in a Mediterranean country (e.g. Italy). Hence, there were conducted the CE surveys with three treatments: (1) CV without a cognitive task, (2) CV with a CT script, and (3) CV with a HO. The findings showed that the effectiveness of the HO script depends on the participants' socio-demographic characteristics. For instance, it was found that the HO script could help to reduce the hypothetical bias for people who possess a high educational level in contrast with those people with low education and low income. Hence, the findings suggest that the oath script not only does not a guarantee the reduction of the hypothetical bias, but it also does not explain the mixed results found in the previous studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Tiziana DE-MAGISTRIS & Faical AKAICHI & Kamel BEN YOUSSEF, 2016. "Testing the effectiveness of the oath script in reducing the hypothetical bias in the Contingent Valuation Method," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(8), pages 378-384.
    • Handle: RePEc:caa:jnlage:v:62:y:2016:i:8:id:174-2015-agricecon
    DOI: 10.17221/174/2015-AGRICECON
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://agricecon.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/174/2015-AGRICECON.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: http://agricecon.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/174/2015-AGRICECON.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17221/174/2015-AGRICECON?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Glynn T. Tonsor & Robert S. Shupp, 2011. "Cheap Talk Scripts and Online Choice Experiments: "Looking Beyond the Mean"," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(4), pages 1015-1031.
    2. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michael Peneder & Sandra Bilek-Steindl & Susanne Bärenthaler-Sieber & Julia Bock-Schappelwein & Alexandros Charos, 2025. "Business Use of Online Platforms: Competition, Satisfaction and Willingness to Pay," WIFO Working Papers 701, WIFO.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    2. Lehmann, Nico & Sloot, Daniel & Ardone, Armin & Fichtner, Wolf, 2021. "The limited potential of regional electricity marketing – Results from two discrete choice experiments in Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    3. Cordula Hinkes & Inken Christoph-Schulz, 2020. "No Palm Oil or Certified Sustainable Palm Oil? Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences and the Role of Information," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-26, September.
    4. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    5. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    6. de Magistris, Tiziana & Pascucci, Stefano, 2012. "Consumers´ preferences for the millennium bugs. Does “solemn oath” mitigate the hypothetical bias in choice experiment?," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124834, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Sergio Colombo & Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Klaus Glenk, 2020. "Ex-ante and ex-post measures to mitigate hypothetical bias. Are they alternative or complementary tools to increase the reliability and validity of DCE estimates?," Working Papers 2020-20, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    8. Carola Grebitus & Anne O. Peschel & Renée Shaw Hughner, 2018. "Voluntary food labeling: The additive effect of “free from” labels and region of origin," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(4), pages 714-727, October.
    9. Maurice Doyon & Laure Saulais & Bernard Ruffieux & Denise Bweli, 2015. "Hypothetical bias for private goods: does cheap talk make a difference?," Post-Print hal-01254936, HAL.
    10. Stephane Bergeron & Maurice Doyon & Laurent Muller, 2019. "Strategic response: A key to understand how cheap talk works," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 67(1), pages 75-83, March.
    11. Liebe, Ulf & Glenk, Klaus & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie & Spiller, Achim, 2019. "A web survey application of real choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 33(C).
    12. Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2019. "Cheap talk efficacy under potential and actual Hypothetical Bias: A meta-analysis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 22-35.
    13. Will, Christian & Lehmann, Nico & Baumgartner, Nora & Feurer, Sven & Jochem, Patrick & Fichtner, Wolf, 2022. "Consumer understanding and evaluation of carbon-neutral electric vehicle charging services," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 313(C).
    14. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    15. Filiptseva, Anna & Filler, Günther & Odening, Martin, 2022. "Compensation Options for Quarantine Costs in Plant Production," 62nd Annual Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, September 7-9, 2022 329595, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    16. Fuchsman, Dillon & McGee, Josh B. & Zamarro, Gema, 2023. "Teachers’ willingness to pay for retirement benefits: A national stated preferences experiment," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    17. John List, 2025. "Valuing Non-Marketed Goods and Services Using a List Field Experiment," Framed Field Experiments 00809, The Field Experiments Website.
    18. Luttmer, Erzo F. P. & Zeckhauser, Richard & Kousky, Carolyn, 2006. "Permits to Elicit Information," Working Paper Series rwp06-049, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    19. Vecchio, Riccardo & Caso, Gerarda & Cembalo, Luigi & Borrello, Massimiliano, 2020. "Is respondents’ inattention in online surveys a major issue for research?," Economia agro-alimentare / Food Economy, Italian Society of Agri-food Economics/Società Italiana di Economia Agro-Alimentare (SIEA), vol. 22(01), March.
    20. Kesternich, Iris & Heiss, Florian & McFadden, Daniel & Winter, Joachim, 2013. "Suit the action to the word, the word to the action: Hypothetical choices and real decisions in Medicare Part D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1313-1324.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:caa:jnlage:v:62:y:2016:i:8:id:174-2015-agricecon. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ivo Andrle (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cazv.cz/en/home/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.