Does context matter more for hypothetical than for actual contributions? Evidence from a natural field experiment

Experimental Economics

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 299-314

  Alpizar, Francisco ^a   Carlsson, Fredrik ^b   Johansson Stenman, Olof ^b  

^a CATIE   (Costa Rica)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Anonymity; Conformity; Environmental valuation; Natural field experiment; Stated preference methods; Voluntary contributions

Indexed keywords

EID: 49249084011     PISSN: 13864157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10683-007-9194-9     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. G. Akerlof R. Kranton 2000 Economics and identity Quarterly Journal of Economics 115 715 753
2. Alpizar, A., Carlsson, F., & Johansson-Stenman, O. (2008, in press). Anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity: evidence from voluntary contributions to a National Park in Costa Rica. Journal of Public Economics.
3. M. Bertrand S. Mullainathan 2001 Do people mean what they say? Implications for subjective survey data American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 91 67 72
4. R. K. Blamey J. W. Bennett M. D. Morrison 1999 Yea-saying in contingent valuation surveys Land Economics 75 126 141
5. K. Blumenschein G. C. Blomquist M. Johannesson N. Horn P. Freeman 2008 Eliciting willingness to pay without bias: evidence from a field experiment Economic Journal 118 114 137
6. R. Carson N. 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. Cookson 2000 Framing effects in public goods experiments Experimental Economics 3 55 79
9. R. G. Cummings L. O. Taylor 1999 Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method American Economic Review 89 649 665
10. R. Cummings S. Elliot G. Harrison J. Murphy 1997 Are hypothetical referenda incentive compatible Journal of Political Economy 105 609 621
11. U. Fischbacher S. Gaechter E. Fehr 2001 Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment Economic Letters 71 397 404
12. B. Frey S. Meier 2004 Social Comparisons and pro-social behavior: testing "Conditional Cooperation" in a field experiment American Economic Review 94 1717 1722
13. Gächter, S. (2006). Conditional cooperation: behavioral regularities from the lab and the field and their policy implications. CeDEx Discussion Paper No. 2006-03, University of Nottingham.
14. W. M. Hanemann 1994 Valuing the environment through contingent valuation Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 19 43
15. G. Harrison J. List 2004 Field experiments Journal of Economic Literature 42 1009 1055
16. Heldt, T. (2005). Conditional cooperation in the field: cross-country skiers' behavior in Sweden. Working Paper, Department of Economics and Society, Dalarna University.
17. E. Hoffman K. McCabe J. Shachat V. Smith 1994 Preferences, property rights, and anonymity in bargaining games Games and Economic Behavior 7 346 380
18. T. Holmes R. Kramer 1995 An independent sample test of yea-saying and starting point bias in dichotomous-choice contingent valuation Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29 121 132
19. Johansson-Stenman, O., & Svedsäter, H. (2007). Self image and the valuation of public goods. Working Paper, Department of Economics, Göteborg University.
20. D. Kahneman R. Thaler 2006 Anomalies: utility maximisation and experienced utility Journal of Economic Perspectives 20 221 234
21. D. Kahneman P. Wakker R. Sarin 1997 Back to Bentham? Explorations of experienced utility Quarterly Journal of Economics 112 375 406
22. D. Karlan J. List 2007 What do laboratory experiments tell us about the real world? American Economic Review 97 1774 1793
23. C. Landry A. Lange J. List M. Price N. Rupp 2006 Toward an understanding of the economics of charity: evidence from a field experiment Quarterly Journal of Economics 121 747 782
24. C. Legget N. Kleckner K. Boyle J. Duffield R. Mitchell 2003 Social desirability bias in contingent valuation surveys administered through in-person interviews Land Economics 79 561 575
25. Levitt, S., & List, J. (2008, in press). What do laboratory experiments tell us about the real world? Journal of Economic Perspectives.
26. J. A. List C. A. Gallet 2001 What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical values? Environmental and Resource Economics 20 241 254
27. J. A. List D. Lucking-Reiley 2002 The effects of seed money and refunds on charitable giving: experimental evidence from a university capital campaign Journal of Political Economy 110 215 233
28. J. A. List A. P. Berrens A. K. Bohara J. Kerkvliet 2004 Examining the role of social isolation on stated preferences American Economic Review 94 741 752
29. Martin, R., & Randal, J. (2005). Voluntary contributions to a public good: a natural field experiment. Working Paper, Victoria University, New Zealand.
30. K. McCabe V. Smith M. LePore 2000 Intentionality detection and "Mindreading": why does game form matter? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97 4404 4409
31. Mitchell, R., & Carson, R. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington: Resources for the Future.
32. Rousseeuw, P. J., & Leroy, A. M. (1987). Robust regression and outlier detection. New York: Wiley.
33. C. Russel T. Bjorner C. Clark 2003 Searching for evidence of alternative preferences, public as opposed to private Journal of Economic Behavior and 51 1 27
34. D. A. Schkade J. W. Payne 1994 How people respond to contingent valuation questions-a verbal protocol analysis of willingness-to-pay for an environmental regulation Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26 88 109
35. Shang, J., & Croson, R. (2006). Field experiments in charitable contribution: the impact of social influence on the voluntary provision of public goods. Working Paper.
36. A. R. Soetevent 2005 Anonymity in giving in a natural context: an economic field experiment in thirty churches Journal of Public Economics 8 2301 2323
37. STATA (2005). STATA base reference manual. College Station: Stata Press.
38. A. Tversky D. Kahneman 1981 The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice Science 211 453 458