Is hypothetical bias universal? Validating contingent valuation responses using a binding public referendum

Abstract This study presents a criterion validity test in which stated choice responses are compared to aggregated votes in a subsequent binding referendum. The assessment is characterized by an identical quasi-public good and information content in hypothetical and actual contexts; a genuine and consequential contingent choice survey implemented before the referendum was scheduled or announced; and hypothetical and actual responses representing a large proportion of a well-defined population. The comparison is designed to be simple and unambiguous—no response re-coding is required, no cheap-talk mechanisms are used, and a single choice per respondent parallels the binding referendum. The study is also distinguished by results that show no statistical evidence of hypothetical bias. Findings provide evidence that hypothetical bias is not universal, and suggest potential means to ameliorate hypothetical bias in stated preference research.

[1]  R. Iman,et al.  Modern business statistics , 1983 .

[2]  M. Johannesson.  Some further experimental results on hypothetical versus real willingness to pay , 1997 .

[3]  K. McConnell.  Models for referendum data: The structure of discrete choice models for contingent valuation , 1990 .

[4]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions , 2005 .

[5]  Robert Cameron Mitchell,et al.  Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method , 1989 .

[6]  J. Stoll,et al.  APPLICATION OF EXPERIMENTATAL ECONOMICS CONCEPTS AND PRECEPTS TO CVM FIELD SURVEY PROCEDURES , 1989 .

[7]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  Incentive and informational properties of preference questions , 2007 .

[8]  John A. List,et al.  Calibration of the difference between actual and hypothetical valuations in a field experiment , 1998 .

[9]  Jeffrey Englin,et al.  Respondent Experience and Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods , 1997 .

[10]  D. Dillman.  Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method, 2nd ed. , 2007 .

[11]  R. G. Cummings,et al.  Induced-value tests of the referendum voting mechanism , 2001 .

[12]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Green Product Choice , 2001 .

[13]  Christopher J. Miller,et al.  Valuing Water Quality Monitoring: A Contingent Valuation Experiment Involving Hypothetical and Real Payments , 1998, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review.

[14]  Carol Mansfield,et al.  Buying Time: Real and Hypothetical Offers , 1996 .

[15]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  Donation Payment Mechanisms and Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias , 2001 .

[16]  R. G. Cummings,et al.  Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible? , 1997, Journal of Political Economy.

[17]  R. G. Cummings,et al.  Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method , 1999 .

[18]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Improving Validity Experiments of Contingent Valuation Methods: Results of Efforts to Reduce the Disparity of Hypothetical and Actual Willingness to Pay , 1996 .

[19]  Nick Hanley,et al.  Validation of stated preferences for public goods: a comparison of contingent valuation survey response and voting behaviour , 2004 .

[20]  J. Shogren,et al.  Cvm‐X: Calibrating Contingent Values with Experimental Auction Markets , 1998 .

[21]  Leonard A. Shabman,et al.  Searching for the Correct Benefit Estimate: Empirical Evidence for an Alternative Perspective , 1996 .

[22]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods , 1997 .

[23]  Robert P. Berrens,et al.  Explaining Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values: Further Investigation Using Meta-Analysis , 2004 .

[24]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses , 1984 .

[25]  I. Krinsky,et al.  On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities , 1986 .

[26]  P. Schmidt,et al.  Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. , 1984 .

[27]  Gregory L. Poe,et al.  Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation , 2002 .

[28]  James J. Murphy,et al.  A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation , 2003 .

[29]  James J. Murphy,et al.  Is Cheap Talk Effective at Eliminating Hypothetical Bias in a Provision Point Mechanism? , 2003 .

[30]  Christian A. Vossler,et al.  Externally validating contingent valuation: an open-space survey and referendum in Corvallis, Oregon , 2003 .

[31]  James J. Murphy,et al.  Contingent Valuation, Hypothetical Bias, and Experimental Economics , 2004, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review.

[32]  John C. Bergstrom,et al.  Information Effects in Contingent Markets , 1989 .

[33]  Stephen K. Swallow,et al.  Contingent Valuation Focus Groups: Insights from Ethnographic Interview Techniques , 1995, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review.

[34]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Real And Hypothetical Willingness To Pay For Environmental Preservation: A Non‐Experimental Comparison , 1997 .

[35]  John A. List,et al.  What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values? , 2001 .

[36]  J. Bennett,et al.  The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation , 2001 .

[37]  Alan Randall,et al.  The Effect of Resource Quality Information on Resource Injury Perceptions and Contingent Values , 2002 .

[38]  Christian A. Vossler,et al.  A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum , 2003 .