IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea22/335998.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Model Choice, Hypothetical Bias and Risk Aversion: A Charitable Donation Application

Author

Listed:
  • Penn, Jerrod
  • Howard, Gregory E.
  • Hu, Wuyang

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Penn, Jerrod & Howard, Gregory E. & Hu, Wuyang, 2023. "Model Choice, Hypothetical Bias and Risk Aversion: A Charitable Donation Application," 2023 Annual Meeting, July 23-25, Washington D.C. 335998, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea22:335998
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/335998/files/26707.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John C. Whitehead & Melissa S. Weddell & Peter A. Groothuis, 2016. "Mitigating Hypothetical Bias In Stated Preference Data: Evidence From Sports Tourism," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(1), pages 605-611, January.
    2. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    3. Jerrod M Penn & Wuyang Hu, 2018. "Understanding Hypothetical Bias: An Enhanced Meta-Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1186-1206.
    4. Hanemann, W Michael, 1984. "Discrete-Continuous Models of Consumer Demand," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(3), pages 541-561, May.
    5. Nunes, Paulo A. L. D. & Schokkaert, Erik, 2003. "Identifying the warm glow effect in contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 231-245, March.
    6. Harbaugh, William T., 1998. "What do donations buy?: A model of philanthropy based on prestige and warm glow," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 269-284, February.
    7. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    8. 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.
    9. Andreoni, James, 1990. "Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(401), pages 464-477, June.
    10. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2005. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects: New Data without Order Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 902-912, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    2. Jiang, Qi & Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2022. "Real payment priming to reduce potential hypothetical bias," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    3. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "Testing the effect of changes in elicitation format, payment vehicle and bid range on the hypothetical bias for moral goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 17-32.
    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. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    6. Ma, Chunbo & Burton, Michael, 2016. "Warm glow from green power: Evidence from Australian electricity consumers," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 106-120.
    7. Bartels, Lara & Falk, Thomas & Duche, Vishwambhar & Vollan, Björn, 2022. "Experimental games in transdisciplinary research: The potential importance of individual payments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    8. Holger Sieg & Jipeng Zhang, 2012. "The Effectiveness Of Private Benefits In Fundraising Of Local Charities," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 53(2), pages 349-374, May.
    9. Messer, Kent D. & Poe, Gregory L. & Schulze, William D., 2008. "The Value of Private Risk Versus the Value of Public Risk: An Experimental Analysis of the Johannesson et al. Conjecture," Working Papers 51141, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    10. Chloe S McCallum & Simone Cerroni & Daniel Derbyshire & W George Hutchinson & Rodolfo M Nayga, 2022. "Consumers’ responses to food fraud risks: an economic experiment [Food fraud and consumers’ choices in the wake of the horsemeat scandal]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(4), pages 942-969.
    11. Allen Blackman & Francisco Alpízar & Fredrik Carlsson & Marisol Rivera Planter, 2018. "A Contingent Valuation Approach to Estimating Regulatory Costs: Mexico’s Day without Driving Program," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 5(3), pages 607-641.
    12. 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.
    13. Matthew P. Taylor, 2017. "Information Acquisition Under Risky Conditions Across Real And Hypothetical Settings," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(1), pages 352-367, January.
    14. Jie He & Jérôme Dupras & Franck Ndefo & Thomas Poder, 2020. "Payment and provision consequentiality in voluntary contribution mechanism: separate or joint effects?," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 11-36, April.
    15. Kees Vringer & Eline van der Heijden & Daan van Soest & Herman Vollebergh & Frank Dietz, 2017. "Sustainable Consumption Dilemmas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-21, June.
    16. Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Svedsäter, Henrik, 2012. "Self-image and valuation of moral goods: Stated versus actual willingness to pay," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 879-891.
    17. Michelson, Hope & Fairbairn, Anna & Ellison, Brenna & Maertens, Annemie & Manyong, Victor, 2021. "Misperceived quality: Fertilizer in Tanzania," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    18. Pengfei Liu & Lingling Hou & Dongqing Li & Shi Min & Yueying Mu, 2021. "Determinants of Livestock Insurance Demand: Experimental Evidence from Chinese Herders," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(2), pages 430-451, June.
    19. Yohei Mitani & Nicholas Flores, 2014. "Hypothetical Bias Reconsidered: Payment and Provision Uncertainties in a Threshold Provision Mechanism," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 59(3), pages 433-454, November.
    20. David A. Comerford & Nick Hanley, 2017. "The External Validity of Consequential Stated Preference Studies: a comment," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2017-02, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy; Risk and Uncertainty; Research Methods/Statistical Methods;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaea22:335998. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.