IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea02/19597.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Effects Of Cheap Talk On Consumer Willingness-To-Pay For Golden Rice

Author

Listed:
  • Lusk, Jayson L.

Abstract

A large body of literature suggests individuals behave differently when responding to hypothetical valuation questions than when actual payment is required. Such findings have generated a great deal of skepticism over the use of the contingent valuation method and benefit measures derived from it. Recently, a new method, cheap talk, has been proposed to eliminate the potential bias in hypothetical valuation questions. Cheap talk refers to process of explaining hypothetical bias to individuals prior to asking a valuation question. This study explores the effect of cheap talk in a mass mail survey using a conventional value elicitation technique. Results suggest that cheap talk was effective at reducing willingness-to-pay for most survey participants. However, consistent with previous research, cheap talk did not reduce willingness-to-pay for consumers who were knowledgeable of the good evaluated.

Suggested Citation

  • Lusk, Jayson L., 2002. "Effects Of Cheap Talk On Consumer Willingness-To-Pay For Golden Rice," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19597, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea02:19597
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.19597
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/19597/files/sp02lu01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jason F. Shogren & John A. List & Dermot J. Hayes, 2000. "Preference Learning in Consecutive Experimental Auctions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(4), pages 1016-1021.
    2. Trudy Ann Cameron, 1991. "Interval Estimates of Non-Market Resource Values from Referendum Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(4), pages 413-421.
    3. Laurian Unnevehr & James Eales & Helen Jensen & Jayson Lusk & Jill McCluskey & Jean Kinsey, 2010. "Food and Consumer Economics," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(2), pages 506-521.
    4. John Loomis & Thomas Brown & Beatrice Lucero & George Peterson, 1997. "Evaluating the Validity of the Dichotomous Choice Question Format in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 109-123, September.
    5. List, John A. & Margolis, Michael & Shogren, Jason F., 1998. "Hypothetical-actual bid calibration of a multigood auction," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 263-268, September.
    6. Noussair, Charles & Robin, Stephane & Ruffieux, Bernard, 2002. "Do consumers not care about biotech foods or do they just not read the labels?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 47-53, March.
    7. Haab, Timothy C., 1998. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a "Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up" Questionnaire: A Comment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 190-194, March.
    8. Cameron Trudy Ann & Quiggin John, 1994. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up Questionnaire," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 218-234, November.
    9. List John A. & Sinha Paramita & Taylor Michael H., 2006. "Using Choice Experiments to Value Non-Market Goods and Services: Evidence from Field Experiments," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-39, January.
    10. John A. Fox & Jason F. Shogren & Dermot J. Hayes & James B. Kliebenstein, 1998. "CVM-X: Calibrating Contingent Values with Experimental Auction Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(3), pages 455-465.
    11. 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.
    12. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & John A. Fox, 2003. "Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 16-29.
    13. Timothy C. Haab & Ju-Chin Huang & John C. Whitehead, 1999. "Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible? A Comment," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 107(1), pages 186-196, February.
    14. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2001. "Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?: Application to the Valuation of the Environment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 179-192, March.
    15. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 1988. "A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 355-379, September.
    16. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 1998. "Referendum Models and Economic Values: Theoretical, Intuitive, and Practical Bounds on Willingness to Pay," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 216-229.
    17. 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.
    18. Lusk, Jayson L. & Moore, Melissa & House, Lisa & Morrow, Bert, 2001. "Influence Of Brand Name And Type Of Modification On Consumer Acceptance Of Genetically Engineered Corn Chips: A Preliminary Analysis," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 4(4), pages 1-11.
    19. 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.
    20. Laurian Unnevehr & James Eales & Helen Jensen & Jayson Lusk & Jill McCluskey & Jean Kinsey, 2010. "Food and Consumer Economics," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(2), pages 506-521.
    21. John A. List, 2001. "Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1498-1507, December.
    22. Lusk, Jayson L. & Hudson, Darren, 2004. "Effect of monitor-subject cheap talk on ultimatum game offers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 439-443, July.
    23. Massimo Paradiso & Antonella Trisorio, 2001. "The effect of knowledge on the disparity between hypothetical and real willingness to pay," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(11), pages 1359-1364.
    24. McKinley Blackburn & Glenn W. Harrison & E. Elisabet Rutström, 1994. "Statistical Bias Functions and Informative Hypothetical Surveys," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(5), pages 1084-1088.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:ags:aaea02:19597. 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: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.