Measuring hypothetical bias in choice experiments: The importance of cognitive consistency

B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2008, Pages

  Johansson Stenman, Olof ^a   Svedsäter, Henrik ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^b LONDON BUSINESS SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Choice experiment; Hypothetical bias; Internal consistency; Non market valuation; Stated preference methods

Indexed keywords

EID: 55549087887     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19351682     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2202/1935-1682.1898     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Aronson, E., 1969. The theory of cognitive dissonance: A current perspective. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 1-34. New York: Academic Press.
2. Benabou, R., and Tirole, J., 2006, Incentives and prosocial behavior. American Economic Review, 96, 1652-1678.
3. Cameron, T.A., Poe, G.L., Ethier, R.G., and Schulze, W.D., 2002. Alternative non-market value-elicitation methods: Are the underlying preferences the same? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44, 391-425.
4. Carlsson, F., and Martinsson, P., 2001. Do hypothetical and actual willingness to pay differ in choice experiments? Application to the valuation of the environment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 41, 179-92.
5. Cialdini, R.B., and De Nicholas, M.E., 1989, Self presentation by association. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 626-31.
6. Eckel, C.C., and Grossman, P.J., 1998. Are women less selfish than men? Evidence from Dictator Experiments, Economic Journal, 108, 726-35.
7. Elliot, A.J., and Devine, P.G., 1994. On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as psychological discomfort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 382-94.
8. Festinger, L., 1957, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row Peterson.
9. Gneezy, U., 2005, Deception: The role of consequences. American Economic Review, 95, 384-94.
10. Harmon-Jones, E., and Mills, J., 1999. Cognitive Dissonance: Progress on a Pivotal Theory in Social Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
11. List, J.A., and Gallet, C.A., 2001. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical values? Environmental and Resource Economics, 20, 241-54.
12. List, J.A., Sinha, P., and Taylor, M.H., 2006. Using choice experiments to value non-market goods and services. Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 6, 1-37.
13. Louviere, J.J, Hensher, D.A., and Swait, J.U.D., 2006. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Lusk, J.L., and Schroeder, T.C., 2003. Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85, 840-56.
15. Murphy, J.J., Allen, P.G., Stevens, T.H., and Weatherhead, D.A., 2005. Meta analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 30, 313-25.
16. Nisbett, R.E., and Ross, L., 1991. The Person and the Situation - Perspectives of Social Psychology. New York: McGraw Hill.
17. Santos-Pinto, L., and Sobel, J.A., 2005. A model of positive self image in subjective assessments. American Economic Review, 95, 1386-1402.
18. Tedeschi, J.T., Schlenker, B.R., and Bonoma, T.V., 1971. Cognitive dissonance: Private ratiocination or public spectacle? American Psychologist, 26, 685-95.
19. Yariv, L., 2005. I'll see it when I believe it: A simple model of cognitive consistency. Working paper, Department of Economics, UCLA.
20. Zwerina, K., Huber, J., and Kuhfeld, W.K., 1996. A general method for constructing efficient choice designs, Working Paper, Duke University.