IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/erevae/v47y2020i3p1302-1337..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing treatments to reduce hypothetical bias in choice experiments regarding organic food

Author

Listed:
  • Adelina Gschwandtner
  • Michael Burton

Abstract

Hypothetical bias is one of the strongest criticisms brought to stated preference methods. We evaluate and compare the use of Cheap Talk and Honesty Priming as methods to mitigate such bias. Our study analyses the demand for organic food products in the UK, and the results reveal a core of consumers with positive willingness to pay (WTP) for organic. However, when correcting for hypothetical bias, consumers appear to be willing to pay even more for other attributes. Most importantly, the results show that implementing mechanisms to correct for hypothetical bias are efficient to reduce WTP, with Cheap Talk having a higher overall significance than Honesty Priming.

Suggested Citation

  • Adelina Gschwandtner & Michael Burton, 2020. "Comparing treatments to reduce hypothetical bias in choice experiments regarding organic food," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 47(3), pages 1302-1337.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:erevae:v:47:y:2020:i:3:p:1302-1337.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/erae/jbz047
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Uddin, Md Azhar & Gao, Zhifeng & Farnsworth, Derek & Borisova, Tatiana & Bolques, Alejandro, 2022. "Mitigation of Hypothetical Bias in Estimating Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Best Management Practice Labels," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322431, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Amelia Ahles & Marco A. Palma & Andreas C. Drichoutis, 2024. "Testing the effectiveness of lottery incentives in online experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 106(4), pages 1435-1453, August.
    3. Vo Hong Tu & Steven W. Kopp & Nguyen Thuy Trang & Andreas Kontoleon & Mitsuyasu Yabe, 2021. "UK Consumers’ Preferences for Ethical Attributes of Floating Rice: Implications for Environmentally Friendly Agriculture in Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-27, July.
    4. 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).
    5. Adelina Gschwandtner & Jose Eduardo Ribeiro & Cesar Revoredo-Giha & Michael Burton, 2021. "Combining Stated and Revealed Preferences for valuing Organic Chicken Meat," Studies in Economics 2113, School of Economics, University of Kent.
    6. 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).
    7. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    8. Kelvin Balcombe & Dylan Bradley & Iain Fraser, 2020. "The Economic Analysis of Consumer Attitudes Towards Food Produced Using Prohibited Production Methods: Do Consumers Really Care?," Studies in Economics 2004, School of Economics, University of Kent.
    9. Eva Crespo-Cebada & Carlos Díaz-Caro & María Teresa Nevado Gil & Ángel Sabino Mirón Sanguino, 2020. "Does Water Pollution Influence Willingness to Accept the Installation of a Mine Near a City? Case Study of an Open-Pit Lithium Mine," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-13, December.
    10. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods," Papers 2102.02945, arXiv.org.
    11. Alfredo J. Escribano & Maria Belen Peña & Carlos Díaz-Caro & Ahmed Elghannam & Eva Crespo-Cebada & Francisco J. Mesías, 2021. "Stated Preferences for Plant-Based and Cultured Meat: A Choice Experiment Study of Spanish Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-21, July.

    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:oup:erevae:v:47:y:2020:i:3:p:1302-1337.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.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.