IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/cesptp/halshs-02136103.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Discrete Choice under Oaths

Author

Listed:
  • Nicolas Jacquemet

    (PSE - Paris School of Economics - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris sciences et lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement, UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, CES - Centre d'économie de la Sorbonne - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Stephane Luchini

    (AMSE - Aix-Marseille Sciences Economiques - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - AMU - Aix Marseille Université - ECM - École Centrale de Marseille - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Jason Shogren

    (UW - University of Wyoming)

  • Verity Watson

    (Health Economics Research Unit - University of Aberdeen)

Abstract

Using discrete choices to elicit preferences is a major tool to help guide public policy. Although Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) remains by far the most popular mechanism used to elicit preferences, its reliability still is questionable. Using an induced value experimental design, we show that standard benchmarks achieve no more than 56% (hypothetical answers with no monetary incentives) to 60% (real monetary incentives) of payoff maximizing choices. Herein we demonstrate that having respondents sign a the truth-telling oath reduces non-payoff maximizing choices by nearly 50% relative to these benchmarks. The explicit and voluntary commitment to honesty improved decisions. Further, we show that it is the explicit commitment to honesty induced by the truth-telling oath improves choices, not just any oath mechanism, i.e., an oath to task or to duty did not improve choices.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicolas Jacquemet & Stephane Luchini & Jason Shogren & Verity Watson, 2019. "Discrete Choice under Oaths," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-02136103, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:cesptp:halshs-02136103
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-02136103
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-02136103/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christian A. Vossler & Maurice Doyon & Daniel Rondeau, 2012. "Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 145-171, November.
    2. Jacquemet, Nicolas & Joule, Robert-Vincent & Luchini, Stéphane & Shogren, Jason F., 2013. "Preference elicitation under oath," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 110-132.
    3. Ian Krajbich & Björn Bartling & Todd Hare & Ernst Fehr, 2015. "Rethinking fast and slow based on a critique of reaction-time reverse inference," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 6(1), pages 1-9, November.
    4. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    5. Camerer, Colin F & Hogarth, Robin M, 1999. "The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 7-42, December.
    6. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander James & Stéphane Luchini & Jason Shogren, 2011. "Social Psychology and Environmental Economics: A New Look at ex ante Corrections of Biased Preference Evaluation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 413-433, March.
    7. Alexandre Mas & Amanda Pallais, 2017. "Valuing Alternative Work Arrangements," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(12), pages 3722-3759, December.
    8. Nicolas Jacquemet & Stéphane Luchini & Julie Rosaz & Jason F. Shogren, 2019. "Truth Telling Under Oath," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(1), pages 426-438, January.
    9. Taylor, Laura O. & McKee, Michael & Laury, Susan K. & Cummings, Ronald G., 2001. "Induced-value tests of the referendum voting mechanism," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 61-65, April.
    10. Vikas Soekhai & Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Alan R. Ellis & Caroline M. Vass, 2019. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 201-226, February.
    11. 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.
    12. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    13. Matthew Interis & Chang Xu & Daniel Petrolia & Kalyn Coatney, 2016. "Examining unconditional preference revelation in choice experiments: a voting game approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 125-142, March.
    14. Collins, Jill P. & Vossler, Christian A., 2009. "Incentive compatibility tests of choice experiment value elicitation questions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 226-235, September.
    15. Richard T. Carson & Theodore Groves & John A. List, 2014. "Consequentiality: A Theoretical and Experimental Exploration of a Single Binary Choice," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 171-207.
    16. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    17. Laura Taylor & Mark Morrison & Kevin Boyle, 2010. "Exchange Rules and the Incentive Compatibility of Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(2), pages 197-220, October.
    18. Swait, Joffre & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2001. "Choice Environment, Market Complexity, and Consumer Behavior: A Theoretical and Empirical Approach for Incorporating Decision Complexity into Models of Consumer Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 141-167, November.
    19. Shogren, Jason F. & Seung Y. Shin & Dermot J. Hayes & James B. Kliebenstein, 1994. "Resolving Differences in Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(1), pages 255-270, March.
    20. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
    21. Luchini, S. & Watson, V., 2014. "Are choice experiments reliable? Evidence from the lab," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 9-13.
    22. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923.
    23. Marisa J. Mazzotta & James J. Opaluch, 1995. "Decision Making When Choices Are Complex: A Test of Heiner's Hypothesis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 71(4), pages 500-515.
    24. Lusk, Jayson L. & Roosen, Jutta & Shogren, Jason (ed.), 2011. "The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Food Consumption and Policy," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199569441.
    25. Abadie A., 2002. "Bootstrap Tests for Distributional Treatment Effects in Instrumental Variable Models," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 97, pages 284-292, March.
    26. Manski, Charles F & Lerman, Steven R, 1977. "The Estimation of Choice Probabilities from Choice Based Samples," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(8), pages 1977-1988, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Arthur E. Attema & Jona J. Frasch & Olivier L’Haridon, 2022. "Multivariate risk preferences in the quality‐adjusted life year model," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 382-398, February.
    2. Attema, Arthur & Frasch, Jona & L'Haridon, Olivier, 2020. "Multivariate risk preferences in the QALY model," MPRA Paper 103339, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Beck, Tobias, 2021. "How the honesty oath works: Quick, intuitive truth telling under oath," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).

    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. Nicolas Jacquemet & Stephane Luchini & Jason Shogren & Verity Watson, 2019. "Discrete Choice under Oaths," Working Papers halshs-02136103, HAL.
    2. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    3. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander James & Stéphane Luchini & Jason F. Shogren, 2017. "Referenda Under Oath," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(3), pages 479-504, July.
    4. Meginnis, Keila & Burton, Michael & Chan, Ron & Rigby, Dan, 2021. "Strategic bias in discrete choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    5. Genie, Mesfin G. & Ryan, Mandy & Krucien, Nicolas, 2021. "To pay or not to pay? Cost information processing in the valuation of publicly funded healthcare," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    6. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    7. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    8. Jérôme Hergueux & Nicolas Jacquemet & Stéphane Luchini & Jason F. Shogren, 2022. "Leveraging the Honor Code: Public Goods Contributions under Oath," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(3), pages 591-616, March.
    9. 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.
    10. Christian A. Vossler & Ewa Zawojska, 2018. "Toward a better understanding of elicitation effects in stated preference studies," Working Papers 2018-01, University of Tennessee, Department of Economics.
    11. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga Jr., Rodolfo M., 2017. "When does real become consequential in non-hypothetical choice experiments?," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266327, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    12. MacDonald, Darla Hatton & Rose, John M. & Johnston, Robert J. & Bark, Rosalind H. & Pritchard, Jodie, 2019. "Managing groundwater in a mining region: an opportunity to compare best-worst and referendum data," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(4), October.
    13. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Zawojska, Ewa & Bartczak, Anna & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "Disentangling the effects of policy and payment consequentiality and risk attitudes on stated preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 63-84.
    15. Weng, Weizhe & Morrison, Mark & Boyle, Kevin J. & Boxall, Peter C., 2017. "The effect of the number of alternatives in choice experiment questions," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 259179, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Oehlmann, Malte & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Mariel, Petr & Weller, Priska, 2017. "Uncovering context-induced status quo effects in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 59-73.
    17. Weng, Weizhe & Morrison, Mark & Boyle, Kevin & Boxall, Peter, 2017. "The effect of the number of alternatives in a choice experiment with an application to the Macquarie Marshes, AU," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252836, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    18. Bosworth Ryan & Taylor Laura O., 2012. "Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments: Is Cheap Talk Effective at Eliminating Bias on the Intensive and Extensive Margins of Choice?," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-28, December.
    19. Boyce, Christopher & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick, 2019. "Personality and economic choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-100.
    20. Jacquemet, N. & Luchini, S. & Malézieux, A. & Shogren, J.F., 2020. "Who’ll stop lying under oath? Empirical evidence from tax evasion games," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Discrete Choice Experiments; Stated Preferences; Oath; Truth-telling; External validity; Welfare;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • H4 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods
    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics

    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:hal:cesptp:halshs-02136103. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.