Values elicited from open-ended real experiments

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Volumn 41, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 221-237

  Horowitz, John K ^a   McConnell, K E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

D60; Hypothetical experiments; Real experiments; Willingness to accept

Indexed keywords

EID: 0041777988     PISSN: 01672681     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/s0167-2681(99)00074-8     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Bateman I., Munro A., Rhodes B., Starmer C., Sugden R. A test of the theory of reference-dependent preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 112:1997;479-505.
2. Cummings R., Elliott S., Harrison G., Murphy J. Are hypothetical referenda incentive compatible? Journal of Political Economy. 105:1997;609-621.
3. Cummings R., Harrison G., Rutström E. Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: is the dichotomous-choice approach incentive-compatible? American Economic Review. 85:1995;260-266.
4. Dickie M., Fisher A., Gerking S. Market transactions and hypothetical demand data: a comparative study. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 82:1987;69-75.
5. Foster V., Bateman I., Harley D. Real and hypothetical willingness-to-pay for environmental preservation: a non-experimental comparison. Journal of Agricultural Economics. 48:1997;123-138.
6. Harless D., Camerer C. The predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories. Econometrica. 62:1994;1251-1290.
7. Hey J., Orme C. Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica. 62:1994;1291-1326.
8. Holt C. Preference reversals and the independence axiom. American Economic Review. 76:1986;508-515.
9. Horowitz, J.K., McConnell, K.E., 1998. A review of WTA/WTP studies, Unpublished manuscript.
10. Horowitz J.K., McConnell K.E., Quiggin J. A test of competing explanations of compensation demanded. Economic inquiry. 37:1999;637-646.
11. Johannesson M., Liljas B., O'Conor R. Hypothetical versus real willingness-to-pay: some experimental results. Applied Economics Letters. 4:1997;149-151.
12. Karni E., Safra Z. Preference reversal and the observability of preferences by experimental methods. Econometrica. 55:1987;675-685.
13. Loomis J., Brown T., Lucero B., Peterson G. Improving validity experiments of contingent valuation methods: results of efforts to reduce the disparity of hypothetical and actual willingness-to-Pay. Land Economics. 72:1996;450-461.
14. Neill H., Cummings R., Ganderton P., Harrison G., McGuckin T. Hypothetical surveys and real economic commitments. Land Economics. 70:1994;145-154.
15. Shogren J., Shin S., Hayes D., Kliebenstein J. Resolving differences in willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept. American Economic Review. 84:1994;255-270.