IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jagaec/v37y2005i01p237-248_00.html

Can Calibration Reconcile Stated and Observed Preferences?

Author

Listed:
  • Norwood, F. Bailey

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Norwood, F. Bailey, 2005. "Can Calibration Reconcile Stated and Observed Preferences?," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(1), pages 237-248, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jagaec:v:37:y:2005:i:01:p:237-248_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1074070800007227/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Rose, John M. & Beck, Matthew J. & Hensher, David A., 2015. "The joint estimation of respondent-reported certainty and acceptability with choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 141-152.
    2. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John & Greaves, Stephen, 2014. "Hypothetical bias in Stated Choice Experiments: Is it a problem? And if so, how do we deal with it?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 164-177.
    3. Moore, Rebecca & Colson, Gregory & Champ, Patricia, 2013. "The effect of decision rule and response format on hypothetical bias in contingent valuation," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150807, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Richard C. Ready & Patricia A. Champ & Jennifer L. Lawton, 2010. "Using Respondent Uncertainty to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in a Stated Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(2), pages 363-381.
    5. Sergio Colombo & Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Klaus Glenk, 2022. "The relative performance of ex‐ante and ex‐post measures to mitigate hypothetical and strategic bias in a stated preference study," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 845-873, September.
    6. Ana Bobinac, 2019. "Mitigating hypothetical bias in willingness to pay studies: post-estimation uncertainty and anchoring on irrelevant information," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 75-82, February.
    7. Kaat de Corte & John Cairns & Richard Grieve, 2021. "Stated versus revealed preferences: An approach to reduce bias," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(5), pages 1095-1123, May.
    8. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John M., 2016. "Can you ever be certain? Reducing hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments via respondent reported choice certaintyAuthor-Name: Beck, Matthew J," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 149-167.
    9. Beck, Matthew J. & Rose, John M. & Hensher, David A., 2013. "Consistently inconsistent: The role of certainty, acceptability and scale in choice," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 81-93.
    10. Paul Hindley & O. Ashton Morgan, 2023. "The Role of Respondent Certainty and Attribute Non-Attendance on the Willingness to Pay for the Attributes of Recyclable Aluminum Bottled Water," Working Papers 23-06, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cup:jagaec:v:37:y:2005:i:01:p:237-248_00. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/aae .

    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.