IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/war/wpaper/2016-33.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Rewarding truthful-telling in stated preference studies

Author

Listed:
  • Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu

    (University of Nantes, LEMNA)

  • Romain Crastes

    (University of Leeds, Centre of Choice Modelling)

  • Jordan Louviere

    (University of South Australia, School of Marketing)

  • Ewa Zawojska

    (Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw)

Abstract

Stated preference surveys rarely provide conditions where a respondent’s optimal strategy is to answer truthfully. As a result, the reliability of stated preference data is often questioned. We consider a new approach economic theory-based approach to incentivize respondents to answer truthfully. Our approach is based on a lie detector coupled with a reward. We discuss theoretical predictions of the approach and test them empirically in a split sample choice experiment dealing with a tree planting program. We find lie detection (i) increases time spent to complete the valuation tasks and (ii) decreases the variance of the error term by using a hybrid choice model that accounts for possible endogeneity. Our results are encouraging but more research is needed to assess the validity of this new approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Romain Crastes & Jordan Louviere & Ewa Zawojska, 2016. "Rewarding truthful-telling in stated preference studies," Working Papers 2016-33, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    • Handle: RePEc:war:wpaper:2016-33
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.wne.uw.edu.pl/index.php/download_file/3191/
    File Function: First version, 2016
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. repec:hal:pseose:halshs-00731244 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. 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.
    5. Rolando Guzman & Charles Kolstad, 2007. "Researching Preferences, Valuation and Hypothetical Bias," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(3), pages 465-487, July.
    6. Tiziana de-Magistris & Azucena Gracia & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2013. "On the Use of Honesty Priming Tasks to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1136-1154.
    7. Loomis, John B., 2014. "2013 WAEA Keynote Address: Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(1), pages 1-13, April.
    8. 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.
    9. Barrage, Lint & Lee, Min Sok, 2010. "A penny for your thoughts: Inducing truth-telling in stated preference elicitation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 140-142, February.
    10. Aleksandra Gajic & David Cameron & Jeremiah Hurley, 2012. "The cost-effectiveness of cash versus lottery incentives for a web-based, stated-preference community survey," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(6), pages 789-799, December.
    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. Hancock, Thomas O. & Broekaert, Jan & Hess, Stephane & Choudhury, Charisma F., 2020. "Quantum probability: A new method for modelling travel behaviour," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 165-198.

    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. 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).
    2. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    3. 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.
    4. Sergio Colombo & Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Klaus Glenk, 2022. "The relative performance of ex‐ante and ex‐post measures to mitigate hypothetical and strategic bias in a stated preference study," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 845-873, September.
    5. 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.
    6. Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Zawojska, Ewa & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Louviere, Jordan, 2018. "Mitigating strategic misrepresentation of values in open-ended stated preference surveys by using negative reinforcement," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 153-166.
    7. Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2019. "Cheap talk efficacy under potential and actual Hypothetical Bias: A meta-analysis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 22-35.
    8. Ewa Zawojska & Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Romain Crastes & Jordan Louviere, 2016. "On a way to overcome strategic overbidding in open-ended stated preference surveys: A recoding approach," Working Papers 2016-34, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    9. 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.
    10. Atozou, Baoubadi & Tamini, Lota D. & Bergeronm, Stephane & Doyon, Maurice, 2020. "Factors Explaining the Hypothetical Bias: How to Improve Models for Meta-Analyses," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 45(2), March.
    11. Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2016. "Making the Most of Cheap Talk in an Online Survey," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236171, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Andersson, Henrik & Ouvrard, Benjamin, 2023. "Priming and the value of a statistical life: A cross country comparison," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    13. Andersson, Henrik & Ouvrard, Benjamin, 2023. "Priming and the Value of a Statistical Life: A Cross Country Comparison," TSE Working Papers 23-1439, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    14. 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.
    15. Stephane Bergeron & Maurice Doyon & Laurent Muller, 2019. "Strategic response: A key to understand how cheap talk works," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 67(1), pages 75-83, March.
    16. Nicolas Jacquemet & Stephane Luchini & Jason Shogren & Verity Watson, 2019. "Discrete Choice under Oaths," Post-Print halshs-02136103, HAL.
    17. Helga Fehr-Duda & Robin Schimmelpfennig, 2018. "Wider die Zahlengläubigkeit: Sind Befragungsergebnisse eine gute Grundlage für wirtschaftspolitische Entscheidungen?," ECON - Working Papers 297, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Dec 2018.
    18. 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).
    19. Timothy C. Haab & Matthew G. Interis & Daniel R. Petrolia & John C. Whitehead, 2013. "From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman's 'Dubious to Hopeless' Critique of Contingent Valuation," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 35(4), pages 593-612.
    20. Amoah, Anthony & Ferrini, Silvia & Schaafsma, Marije, 2019. "Electricity outages in Ghana: Are contingent valuation estimates valid?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    stated preferences; truth-telling; choice experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q30 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation - - - General

    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:war:wpaper:2016-33. 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: Marcin Bąba (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fesuwpl.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.