A penny for your thoughts: Inducing truth-telling in stated preference elicitation

Abstract Contingent valuation often induces hypothetical bias. In a laboratory experiment, we test three calibration mechanisms: cheap-talk, consequentialism, and a new mechanism, the Bayesian truth serum (“BTS”). We apply the BTS in a “faith-based” format: subjects are informed about the purpose and potential efficacy of the BTS, but not its theoretical foundations. We find that real and hypothetical responses differ significantly; real and consequentialist responses are statistically indistinguishable; cheap-talk and the BTS eliminate bias inconsistently; subject characteristics interact significantly with treatment.

[1]  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.

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

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

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

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

[6]  J. Shogren.  Experimental Methods and Valuation , 2005 .

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

[8]  John A. List,et al.  Hypothetical-actual bid calibration of a multigood auction , 1998 .

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

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

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

[12]  D. Prelec.  A Bayesian Truth Serum for Subjective Data , 2004, Science.

[13]  A. Eagly.  Sex differences in influenceability. , 1978 .

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

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

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