An investigation of individual preferences: consistency across incentives and stability over time
Download full text from publisher
References listed on IDEAS
- 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.
- Matthias Benz & Stephan Meier, "undated". "Do People Behave in Experiments as in the Field? ï¿½ Evidence from Donations," IEW - Working Papers 248, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
- Swait, Joffre & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2001. " The Influence of Task Complexity on Consumer Choice: A Latent Class Model of Decision Strategy Switching," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(1), pages 135-148, June.
- San Miguel, Fernando & Ryan, Mandy & Scott, Anthony, 2002. "Are preferences stable? The case of health care," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 1-14, May.
- repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2004:i:6:p:1-13 is not listed on IDEAS
- James Andreoni & Lise Vesterlund, 2001.
"Which is the Fair Sex? Gender Differences in Altruism,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
Oxford University Press, vol. 116(1), pages 293-312.
- Andreoni,J. & Vesterlund,L., 1998. "Which is the fair sex? : Gender differences in altruism," Working papers 10, Wisconsin Madison - Social Systems.
- Andreoni, James & Vesterlund, Lise, 2001. "Which is the Fair Sex? Gender Differences in Altruism," Staff General Research Papers Archive 1951, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- 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.
- John List & Paramita Sinha & Michael Taylor, 2006. "Using choice experiments to value non-market goods and services: Evidence from field experiments," Natural Field Experiments 00278, The Field Experiments Website.
- Andreoni, James, 1989. "Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 97(6), pages 1447-1458, December.
- 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.
- Cummings, Ronald G & Harrison, Glenn W & Rutstrom, E Elisabet, 1995. "Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 260-266, March.
- 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.
- John List, 2001. "Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auctions for sportscards," Framed Field Experiments 00163, The Field Experiments Website.
- Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004.
"Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks,"
American Journal of Agricultural Economics,
Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
- Jayson Lusk & Ted Schroeder, 2004. "Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks," Artefactual Field Experiments 00096, The Field Experiments Website.
- Karen Blumenschein & GlennC. Blomquist & Magnus Johannesson & Nancy Horn & Patricia Freeman, 2008. "Eliciting Willingness to Pay Without Bias: Evidence from a Field Experiment," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 114-137, January.
- 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.
- 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.
- Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
- Cameron, Trudy Ann & Poe, Gregory L. & Ethier, Robert G. & Schulze, William D., 2002. "Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 391-425, November.
- Hanley, Nick & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Wright, Robert E., 2005. "Price vector effects in choice experiments: an empirical test," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 227-234, October.
- 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.
- Richard C. Ready & Patricia A. Champ & Jennifer L. Lawton, 2010. "Using Respondent Uncertainty to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in a Stated Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(2), pages 363-381.
- Stigler, George J & Becker, Gary S, 1977. "De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(2), pages 76-90, March.
CitationsCitations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Campbell, Danny, 2014. "Behavioral implications of providing real incentives in stated choice experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 102-116.
More about this item
KeywordsIndividual preference; hypothetical bias; time inconsistency; discrete choice experiments; charitable donations;
- C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
- D11 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Theory
- D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
- H40 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - General
NEP fieldsThis paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2012-04-10 (All new papers)
- NEP-CBE-2012-04-10 (Cognitive & Behavioural Economics)
- NEP-DCM-2012-04-10 (Discrete Choice Models)
- NEP-EXP-2012-04-10 (Experimental Economics)
- NEP-UPT-2012-04-10 (Utility Models & Prospect Theory)
StatisticsAccess and download statistics
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:zur:econwp:070. 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: (Marita Kieser). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/seizhch.html .