Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments: Is Cheap Talk Effective at Eliminating Bias on the Intensive and Extensive Margins of Choice?

Abstract We use an experimental approach to evaluate the effectiveness of the most commonly employed bias-mitigation tool in nonmarket valuation surveys: the cheap talk script. Our experimental design allows us to estimate treatment effects on two margins of choice separately: the decision to enter the market at all (the extensive margin) and the choices among alternatives offered (the intensive margin). The key result of this study is to show that a cheap talk script appears to affect both margins in ways distinctly different than when choices involve actual payments. Specifically, participants in hypothetical choice experiments including cheap talk are more inclined to enter the market but are also more price-sensitive as compared to when payments are real. Interestingly, the average influence of cheap talk on market participation and price-sensitiveness could result in total willingness to pay (WTP) estimates that are similar to real payment treatments since the two effects identified act in opposite directions when computing WTP. However, they may do so by inducing behavior that is distinctly different than those of consumers facing real choices. Our results highlight that future reliance on cheap talk as a bias mitigation tool requires extensive testing for empirical regularities to gain any confidence that the tool can be effective, and under what circumstances.

[1]  R. G. Cummings,et al.  Does Realism Matter in Contingent Valuation Surveys , 1998 .

[2]  K. S. Carson,et al.  Resolving questions about bias in real and hypothetical referenda , 2005 .

[3]  R. Berrens,et al.  Investigating hypothetical bias: induced-value tests of the referendum voting mechanism with uncertainty , 2007 .

[4]  Robert P. Berrens,et al.  Examining the Role of Social Isolation on Stated Preferences , 2004 .

[5]  Christian A. Vossler,et al.  Bridging the gap between the field and the lab: Environmental goods, policy maker input, and consequentiality , 2009 .

[6]  Arthur J. Caplan,et al.  Cheap Talk Reconsidered: New Evidence From CVM , 2006 .

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

[8]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  Exchange Rules and the Incentive Compatibility of Choice Experiments , 2010 .

[9]  Nicolas Jacquemet,et al.  Social Psychology and Environmental Economics: A New Look at ex ante Corrections of Biased Preference Evaluation , 2010 .

[10]  Thomas C. Brown,et al.  Testing the Effectiveness of Certainty Scales, Cheap Talk, and Dissonance-Minimization in Reducing Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies , 2009 .

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

[12]  J. List,et al.  Using Ex Ante Approaches to Obtain Credible Signals for Value in Contingent Markets: Evidence from the Field , 2007 .

[13]  K. McConnell,et al.  A Review of Wta/Wtp Studies , 2000 .

[14]  Carl Johan Lagerkvist,et al.  Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments , 2005 .

[15]  T. Schroeder,et al.  Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks , 2004 .

[16]  J. Loomis.  Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation , 2005 .

[17]  John A. List,et al.  Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auctions for sportscards , 2001 .

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

[19]  Owen R. Phillips,et al.  A Bayesian examination of information and uncertainty in contingent valuation , 2007 .

[20]  R. G. Cummings,et al.  Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible? , 1995 .

[21]  Thomas C. Brown,et al.  Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation , 2003 .

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

[23]  Michael K. Price,et al.  Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment , 2013 .

[24]  J. Lusk,et al.  Effects of Cheap Talk on Consumer Willingness‐To‐Pay for Golden Rice , 2003 .

[25]  Min Sok Lee,et al.  A penny for your thoughts: Inducing truth-telling in stated preference elicitation , 2010 .

[26]  D. Hensher,et al.  Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications , 2000 .

[27]  J. Shogren,et al.  Preference Elicitation Under Oath , 2010 .

[28]  John A. List,et al.  Using Choice Experiments to Value Non-Market Goods and Services: Evidence from Field Experiments , 2006 .

[29]  Nicholas E. Flores,et al.  Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence , 2000 .

[30]  David J. Bjornstad,et al.  A Learning Design for Reducing Hypothetical Bias in the Contingent Valuation Method , 1997 .

[31]  Magnus Johannesson,et al.  Eliciting Willingness to Pay Without Bias: Evidence from a Field Experiment , 2008 .

[32]  James J. Murphy,et al.  Behavioral foundations of environmental economics and valuation , 2012 .

[33]  David Aadland,et al.  Willingness to Pay for Curbside Recycling with Detection and Mitigation of Hypothetical Bias , 2003 .

[34]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches , 2011 .