IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/mve/journl/v36y2010i1p55-77.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Differences Do Certainty and Cheap Talk Make in Eliciting Willingness to Pay for Education?

Author

Listed:
  • Brandon C. Koford

    (Weber State University)

Abstract

Hypothetical estimates of willingness to pay tend to overstate real willingness to pay. Several methods to mitigate this so called hypothetical bias have been developed. This paper contributes by presenting the first simultaneous comparison of three common hypothetical bias mitigation methods as well as their interactions. In addition, the study represents the first use of the contingent valuation method to value higher education. The findings of the study suggest that models adjusting for certainty according to definitely sure yes responses are most similar to the model that adjusts for certainty at a level of 8 or higher. These calibrations yield point estimates of mean willingness to pay only a quarter to a third of estimates that do not account for certainty. Surprisingly the cheap talk treatment leads to yes respondents indicating responses with a higher level of certainty and higher mean willingness to pay.

Suggested Citation

  • Brandon C. Koford, 2010. "What Differences Do Certainty and Cheap Talk Make in Eliciting Willingness to Pay for Education?," Journal of Economic Insight, Missouri Valley Economic Association, vol. 36(1), pages 55-77.
    • Handle: RePEc:mve:journl:v:36:y:2010:i:1:p:55-77
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • I20 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - General

    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:mve:journl:v:36:y:2010:i:1:p:55-77. 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: Cullen Goenner (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mveaaea.html .

    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.