A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 313-325

  Murphy, James J ^a   Allen, P Geoffrey ^a   Stevens, Thomas H ^a   Weatherhead, Darryl ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

^b U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Experiments; Hypothetical bias; Meta analysis; Stated preference

Indexed keywords

CALIBRATION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PUBLIC POLICY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

ECONOMIC VALUATION; MODEL SPECIFICATION; PUBLIC GOODS; SKEWNESS;

ECONOMICS;

ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES; META-ANALYSIS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 17644395703     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-004-3332-z     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. R. C. Bishop T. A. Heberlein 1979 Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61 926 930
2. R.C. Bishop T.A. Heberlein 1986 Does Contingent Valuation Work? R. Cummings D. Brookshire W. Schulze Valuing Environmental Goods: A State of the Art Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method Rowman and Allenheld Totowa, NJ
3. P. Bohm 1972 Estimating the Demand for Public Goods: An Experiment European Economic Review 3 111 130
4. D.S. Brookshire D.L. Coursey 1987 Measuring the Value of a Public Good: An Empirical Comparison of Elicitation Procedures The American Economic Review 77 554 566
5. T. Brown 1984 The Concept of Value in Resource Allocation Land Economics 60 231 246
6. R.T. Carson N.E. Flores K.M. Martin J.L. Wright 1996 Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods Land Economics 72 80 99
7. P.A. Champ R.C. Bishop T.C. Brown D.W. McCollum 1997 Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33 151 162
8. R.G. Cummings G.W. Harrison E.E. Rutström 1995 Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible? American Economic Review 85 260 266
9. R.G. Cummings L.O. Taylor 1999 Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method The American Economic Review 89 649 665
10. M. Dickie A. Fisher S. Gerking 1987 Market Transactions and Hypothetical Demand Data: A Comparative Study Journal of the American Statistical Association 82 69 75
11. V. Foster I.J. Bateman D. Harley 1997 Real and Hypothetical Willingness to Pay for Environmental Preservation: A Non-Experimental Comparison Journal of Agricultural Economics 48 123 138
12. J.A. Fox J.F. Shogren D.J. Hayes J.B. Kliebenstein 1998 CVM-X: Calibrating Contingent Values with Experimental Auction Markets American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80 455 465
13. W.M. Hanemann 1984 Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66 332 341
14. Harrison G.W., Rutstroüm E.E., (forthcoming). Experimental Evidence on the Existence of Hypothetical Bias in Value Elicitation Methods. In: Smith V.L., ed, Handbook of Results in Experimental Economics. New York, Elsevier Science
15. T.A. Heberlein R. Bishop 1986 Assessing the Validity of Contingent Valuations: Three Field Experiments Science of the Total Environment 56 434 479
16. J.R. Irwin P. Slovic S. Lickenstein G. McClelland 1993 Preference Reversals and the Measurement of Environmental Values Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 6 5 18
17. M. Johannesson 1997 Some Further Experimental Results on Hypothetical versus Real Willingness to Pay Applied Economics Letters 4 535 536
18. J.A. List 2001 Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards American Economic Review 91 1498 1507
19. J.A. List 2003 Using Random nth Price Auctions to Value Non-Market Goods and Services Journal of Regulatory Economics 23 193 205
20. J.A. List C. Gallet 2001 What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values? Environmental and Resource Economics 20 241 254
21. J.A. List J.F. Shogren 1998 Calibration of the Difference between Actual and Hypothetical Valuations in a Field Experiment Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 37 193 205
22. J. Loomis T. Brown B. Lucero G. Peterson 1996 Improving Validity Experiments of Contingent Valuation Methods: Results of Efforts to Reduce the Disparity of Hypothetical and Actual Willingness to Pay. Land Economics 72 4450 4461
23. J. McKenzie 1993 A Comparison of Contingent Preference Models American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75 593 603
24. H.R. Neill R.G. Cummings P.T. Ganderton G.W. Harrison T. McGuckin 1994 Hypothetical Surveys and Real Economic Commitments Land Economics 70 145 154
25. G.L. Poe J.E. Clark D. Rondeau W.D. Schulze 2002 Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation Environmental and Resource Economics 23 105 131
26. J.A. Sinden 1988 Empirical Tests of Hypothetical Biases in Consumers' Surplus Surveys Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics 32 98 112
27. V.K. Smith C. Mansfield 1998 Buying Time: Real and Hypothetical Offers Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36 209 224