A Comparison of Approaches to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias

We compare two approaches to mitigating hypothetical bias. The study design includes three treatments: an actual payment treatment, a contingent valuation (CV) treatment with a follow-up certainty question, and a CV treatment with a cheap talk script. Our results suggest that both the follow-up certainty treatment and the cheap talk treatment produce willingness-to-pay (WTP) estimates consistent with the actual payment treatment. However, the follow-up certainty treatment provides response distributions at all offer amounts that are statistically similar to the actual payment treatment, while the cheap talk treatment provides similar responses only at some offer amounts. Furthermore, the cheap talk treatment is effective only for inexperienced individuals. We conclude that the follow-up certainty approach is more consistent than the cheap talk approach for eliminating hypothetical bias.

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

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

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

[4]  F. Bailey Norwood,et al.  Can Calibration Reconcile Stated and Observed Preferences? , 2005, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

[5]  Nicholas E. Flores,et al.  Contingent Valuation and Incentives , 2002, Land Economics.

[6]  Magnus Johannesson,et al.  Experimental Results on Expressed Certainty and Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation , 1998 .

[7]  G. Cornelis van Kooten,et al.  Treating respondent uncertainty in contingent valuation: A comparison of empirical treatments , 2007 .

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

[9]  Magnus Johannesson,et al.  Calibrating Hypothetical Willingness to Pay Responses , 1999 .

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

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

[12]  T. Stevens,et al.  A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation , 2006 .

[13]  Gregory L. Poe,et al.  A Comparison of Hypothetical Phone and Mail Contingent Valuation Responses for Green-Pricing Electricity Programs , 1997 .

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

[15]  李幼升,et al.  Ph , 1989 .

[16]  Leif Mattsson,et al.  Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: an improved structural model for contingent valuation. , 1995 .

[17]  Glenn C. Blomquist,et al.  Contingent Valuation When Respondents Are Ambivalent , 1995 .

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

[19]  Gregory L. Poe,et al.  Elicitation Effects in Contingent Valuation: Comparisons to a Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Approach , 1998 .

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

[21]  Forecasting Hypothetical Bias : A Tale of Two Calibrations , 2004 .

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

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

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

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