Cheap Talk Reconsidered: New Evidence From CVM

Two recent studies have shown that “cheap talk” is an effective means of eliminating positive hypothetical bias in experimental and field-auction settings. We further investigate the ability of cheap talk to mitigate positive hypothetical bias in a CVM phone survey administered to over 4,000 households. Positive hypothetical bias is first detected in our data by contrasting revealed and stated preference information. However, a short, neutral cheap-talk script appears to exacerbate rather than mitigate the bias. Based on this and mixed evidence from earlier studies, we suggest caution in using cheap talk as an ex ante control for hypothetical bias.

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

[2]  Daniel L. Rubinfeld,et al.  Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies : Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods , 1997 .

[3]  Erwin H. Bulte,et al.  The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated WTP values : Evidence from a field study , 2005 .

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

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

[6]  H. Neill.  The Context for Substitutes in CVM Studies: Some Empirical Observations , 1995 .

[7]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation , 1994 .

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

[9]  J. Louviere,et al.  Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities , 1994 .

[10]  David M. Aadland,et al.  Incentive Incompatibility and Starting-Point Bias in Iterative Valuation Questions: Comment , 2004, Land Economics.

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

[12]  M. Pauly,et al.  Universal health insurance in the Clinton plan: coverage as a tax-financed public good. , 1994, The journal of economic perspectives : a journal of the American Economic Association.

[13]  Gregory L. Poe,et al.  Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same? , 2002 .

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

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

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

[17]  J. Andreoni.  IMPURE ALTRUISM AND DONATIONS TO PUBLIC GOODS: A THEORY OF WARM-GLOW GIVING* , 1990 .

[18]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Do Reminders of Substitutes and Budget Constraints Influence Contingent Valuation Estimates , 1994 .

[19]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  Modeling Response Incentive Effects in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Data , 1997 .

[20]  Trudy Ann Cameron,et al.  A New Paradigm for Valuing Non-market Goods Using Referendum Data: Maximum Likelihood Estimation by Censored Logistic Regression' , 1988 .

[21]  John C. Bergstrom,et al.  The Impact of Information on Environmental Commodity Valuation Decisions , 1990 .

[22]  Deborah Vaughn Nestor,et al.  Policy Evaluation with Combined Actual and Contingent Response Data , 1998 .

[23]  J. Hausman,et al.  Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number? , 1994 .

[24]  J. Whitehead.  Incentive Incompatibility and Starting-Point Bias in Iterative Valuation Questions , 2002, Land Economics.

[25]  J. R. DeShazo,et al.  Designing Transactions without Framing Effects in Iterative Question Formats , 2002 .

[26]  R. F.,et al.  Mathematical Statistics , 1944, Nature.

[27]  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 .

[28]  A. Tversky,et al.  Choices, Values, and Frames , 2000 .

[29]  G. Harrison,et al.  Environmental Damage Assessment with Hypothetical Surveys: The Calibration Approach , 1999 .

[30]  Mark Dickie,et al.  Market Transactions and Hypothetical Demand Data: A Comparative Study , 1987 .

[31]  J. Whitehead,et al.  Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible? A comment , 1999, Journal of Political Economy.

[32]  M. Boman,et al.  Topics in environmental economics , 1999 .

[33]  James J. Murphy.  An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias in Voluntary Contribution Contingent Valuation : Does Cheap Talk Matter ? , 2002 .