On the use of cheap talk in new product valuation

Economics Bulletin

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2007, Pages

  Brummett, Robert G ^a   Nayga Jr , Rodolfo M ^a   Wu, Ximing ^a  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34447338298     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15452921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Aadland, D., Caplan, A.J., 2005. Cheap talk reconsidered: New evidence from CVM. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, in press. doi:10.10161/j.jebo.2004.09.006.
2. Brown, T.C., Ajzen, I., Hrubes, D., 2003. Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 46, 353-361.
3. Blackburn, M., Harrison, G., Rustrom, E., 1994. Statistical bias functions and informative hypothetical surveys. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76, 1084-1088.
4. Boyle, K.J., 2002. Contingent Valuation in Practice in A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation, Champ P.A., Boyle K.J. and Brown T.C. (ed.). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
5. Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., Lagerkvist, C.J., 2005. Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments. Economics Letters 89, 147-152.
6. Cameron, T.A., Huppert, D.D., 1989, OLS versus ML Estimation of Non-Market Resource Values with Payment Card Interval Data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 17, 230-246.
7. Cummings, R.G., Harrison, G.W., Rustrom, E.E., 1995. Homegrown value and hypothetical surveys: Is the dichotomous choice approach incentive-compatible? American Economic Review 85, 260-266.
8. Cummings, R.G., Taylor, L.O., 1999. Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: A cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. The American Economic Review 89,3, 649-665.
9. Fox, J.A., Shogren, J.F., Hayes, D.J., Kliebenstein, J.B., 1998. CVM-X: Calibrating contingent values with experimental auction markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80, 455-465.
10. Hayes, D.J., Fox, J.A., Shogren, J.F., 2002. Experts and activists: how information affects the demand for food irradiation. Food Policy 27, 185-193.
11. List, J.A., 2001. Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auctions for sportscards. The American Economic Review 91,5, 1498-1507.
12. List, J.A., Gallet, C.A., 2001. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environmental and Resource Economics 20, 241-254.
13. List, J.A., Margolis, M., Shogren, J.F., 1998. Hypothetical-actual bid calibration of a multigood auction. Economics Letters 60, 263-268.
14. Loomis, J., Brown, T., Lucero, B., Peterson, G., 1997. Evaluating the validity of the dichotomous choice question format in contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 10, 109-123.
15. Lusk, J.L., 2003. Effects of cheap talk on consumer willingness-to-pay for golden rice.", American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85, 840-856.
16. Murphy, J.J., Allen, P.G., Stevens, T.H., Weatherhead, D., 2005. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 30, 313-325.
17. Neill, H.R., Cummings, R.G., Ganderton, P.T., Harrison, G.W., McGuckin, T., 1994. Hypothetical surveys and real economic commitments. Land Economics 70, 145-154.
18. Poe, G., Clark, J.E., Rondeau, D., Schulze, W.D., 2002. Provision point mechanisms and field validity tests of contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 23, 105-131.
19. Rowe, R.D., Schulze, W.D., Breffle, W.S., 1996. A test for payment card biases. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31, 178-185.