A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation

Individuals are widely believed to overstate their economic valuation of a good by a factor of two or three. This paper reports the results of a meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in 28 stated preference valuation studies that report monetary willingness-to-pay and that used the same mechanism for eliciting both hypothetical and actual values. The papers generated 83 observations with a median value of the ratio of hypothetical to actual value of 1.35, and the distribution has severe positive skewness. Since a comprehensive theory of hypothetical bias has not been developed, we use a set of explanatory variables based on issues that have been investigated in previous research. We find that a choice-based elicitation mechanism is important in reducing bias, though an insufficient number of studies and confounding with other variables prevents us from characterizing individual mechanisms. We provide some evidence that the use of student subjects may be a source of bias, but this variable is highly correlated with group experimental settings and no firm conclusions can be drawn. There is some weak evidence that bias increases when public goods are being valued, and that some calibration methods are effective at reducing bias. Results are quite sensitive to model specification, which will remain a problem until a comprehensive theory of hypothetical bias is developed.

[1]  Peter Bohm,et al.  Estimating the demand for public goods: An experiment , 1972 .

[2]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased? , 1979 .

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

[4]  R. C. Bishop,et al.  Assessing the validity of contingent valuation: Three field experiments , 1986 .

[5]  William D. Schulze,et al.  The Disparity Between Willingness to Accept and Willingness to Pay Measures of Value , 1987 .

[6]  David S. Brookshire,et al.  Measuring the Value of a Public Good: An Empirical Comparison of Elicitation Procedures , 1987 .

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

[8]  Jack A. Sinden,et al.  Empirical Tests Of Hypothetical Bias In Consumers' Surplus Surveys , 1988 .

[9]  Mary Jo Kealy,et al.  Accuracy in Valuation Is a Matter of Degree , 1988 .

[10]  Mary Jo Kealy,et al.  Reliability and predictive validity of contingent values: Does the nature of the good matter? , 1990 .

[11]  Rebecca R Boyce.  An Experimental Examination of Intrinsic Values as a , 1992 .

[12]  Gary McClelland,et al.  Hypothetical and Real Consequences in Experimental Auctions for Insurance against Low Probability Risks , 1992 .

[13]  G. McClelland,et al.  Insurance for low-probability hazards: A bimodal response to unlikely events , 1993 .

[14]  John Mackenzie,et al.  A Comparison of Contingent Preference Models , 1993 .

[15]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Preference reversals and the measurement of environmental values , 1993 .

[16]  M. Johannesson.  The Contingent-valuation Method , 1993, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[17]  Helen R. Neill,et al.  Hypothetical Surveys and Real Economic Commitments , 1994 .

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

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

[20]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good , 1996 .

[21]  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 .

[22]  T. Brown,et al.  Evaluating the Validity of the Dichotomous Choice Question Format in Contingent Valuation , 1997 .

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

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

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

[26]  P. Frykblom,et al.  Hypothetical Question Modes and Real Willingness to Pay , 1997 .

[27]  Magnus Johannesson,et al.  Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay: some experimental results , 1997 .

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

[29]  M. Johannesson,et al.  Hypothetical versus real payments in Vickrey auctions , 1997 .

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

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

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

[33]  Per-Olov Johansson,et al.  An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions and real purchase decisions , 1998 .

[34]  D. Macmillan,et al.  A Field Experiment Involving Cash and Hypothetical Charitable Donations , 1999 .

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

[36]  P. Frykblom.  Willingness to pay and the choice of question format: experimental results , 2000 .

[37]  Laura O. Taylor,et al.  Do As You Say, Say As You Do: Evidence On Gender Differences In Actual And Stated Contributions To Public Goods , 2000 .

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

[39]  Edward J. Balistreri,et al.  Can Hypothetical Questions Reveal True Values? A Laboratory Comparison of Dichotomous Choice and Open-Ended Contingent Values with Auction Values , 2001 .

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

[41]  Peter Martinsson,et al.  Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?: Application to the Valuation of the Environment , 2001 .

[42]  Magnus Johannesson,et al.  Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment. , 2001 .

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

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

[45]  John A. List,et al.  Calibration of Willingness-to-Accept☆ , 2002 .

[46]  Anabela Botelho,et al.  Hypothetical, real, and predicted real willingness to pay in open-ended surveys: experimental results , 2002 .

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

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

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

[50]  John A. List,et al.  Using Random nth Price Auctions to Value Non-Market Goods and Services , 2003 .

[51]  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 .