How closely do hypothetical surveys and laboratory experiments predict field behavior?

American Journal of Agricultural Economics

Volumn 91, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 518-534

  Chang, Jae Bong ^a   Lusk, Jayson L ^a   Norwood, Bailey F ^a  

^a OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Choice experiments; Contingent valuation; Experimental economics; External validity; Field experiment

Indexed keywords

CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; ECONOMETRICS; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; LABORATORY METHOD; MODEL; PARAMETERIZATION; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; PREDICTION; RETAILING; SHOPPING ACTIVITY; SURVEY;

TRITICUM AESTIVUM;

EID: 64649096117     PISSN: 00029092     EISSN: 14678276     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01242.x     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Adamowicz, W., R. Boxall, M. Williams, and J. Louviere. 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80: 64-75.
2. Adamowicz, W., J. Louviere, and M. Williams. 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26: 271-92.
3. Alfnes, F., A.G. Guttormsen, G. Steine, and K. Kolstad. 2006. "Consumers' Willingness to Pay for the Color of Salmon: A Choice Experiment with Real Economic Incentives." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88: 1050-61.
4. Andrews, R.L., and T.C. Srinivasan. 1995. "Studying Consideration Effects in Empirical Choice Models Using Scanner Panel Data." Journal of Marketing Research 32: 30-41.
5. Beggs, S., S. Cardell, and J. Hausman. 1981. "Assessing the Potential Demand for Electric Cars." Journal of Econometrics 17: 1-19.
6. Ben-Akiva, M., and B. Boccara. 1995. "Discrete Choice Models with Latent Choice Sets." International Journal of Research in Marketing 12: 9-24.
7. Boyle, K.J., T.P. Holmes, M.F. Teisl, and B. Roe. 2001. "A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83: 441-54.
8. Brookshire, D.S., D.L. Coursey, and W.D. Schulze. 1987. "The External Validity of Experimental Economics Techniques: Analysis of Demand Behavior." Economic Inquiry 25: 239-50.
9. Brookshire, D.S., M. Thayer, W.D. Schulze, R. d'Arge. 1982. "Valuing Public Goods: A Comparison of the Survey and Hedonic Approaches." American Economic Review 72: 165-77.
10. Carson, R.T., N.E. Flores, K. Martin, J.L. Wright. 1996. "Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods." Land Economics 71: 80-99.
11. Carson, R.T., and T. Groves. 2007. "Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions." Environmental and Resource Economics 37: 181-210.
12. Ding, M., R. Grewal, and J. Liechty. 2005. "Incentive-Aligned Conjoint Analysis." Journal of Marketing Research 42: 67-83.
13. Fox, J., J. Shogren, D. Hayes, and J. Kliebenstein. 1998. "CVM-X: Calibrating Contingent Values with Experimental Auction Markets." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80: 455-65.
14. Haab, T.C., and R.L. Hicks. 1997. "Accounting for Choice Set Endogeneity in Random Utility Models of Recreation Demand." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 34: 127-47.
15. Harrison, G., and J.A. List. 2004. "Field Experiments." Journal of Economic Literatures 42: 1009-55.
16. Johnston, R.J. 2006. "Is Hypothetical Bias Universal?Validating Contingent Valuation Responses Using a Binding Public Referendum." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 52: 469-81.
17. Kastens, T.L., and G.W. Brester. 1996. "Model Selection and Forecasting Ability of Theory-Constrained Food Demand Systems." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78: 301-12.
18. Krinsky, I., and A.L. Robb. 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities." Review of Economics and Statistics 64: 715-19.
19. Levitt, S.D., and J.A. List. 2007. "What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World?" Journal of Economic Perspectives 21: 153-74.
20. List, J.A. 2006. "The Behavioralist Meets the Market: Measuring Social Preferences and Reputation Effect in Actual Transactions." Journal of Political Economy 114: 1-37.
21. List, J.A., and C.A. Gallet. 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values ?" Environmental and Resource Economics 20: 241-54.
22. Little, J., and R. Berrens. 2004. "Explaining Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values: Further Investigation Using Meta-Analysis." Economics Bulletin 3: 1-13.
23. Loomis, J., M. Creel, and T. Park. 1991. "Comparing Benefit Estimates from Travel Cost and Contingent Valuation Using Confidence Intervals for Hicksian Welfare Measures." Applied Economics 23: 1725-31.
24. Louviere, J.J., D.A. Hensher, and J.D. Swait. 2000. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Lusk, J.L., D. Fields, and W. Prevatt. 2008. "An Incentive Compatible Conjoint Ranking Mechanism." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90: 487-98.
26. Lusk, J.L, B. Norwood, and R. Pruitt. 2006. "Consumer Demand for a Ban on Subtherapeutic Antibiotic Drug Use in Pork Production." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88: 1015-33.
27. Lusk, J.L., J.R. Pruitt, and F.B. Norwood. 2006. "External Validity of a Framed Field Experiment." Economic Letters 93: 285-90.
28. Lusk, J.L., J. Roosen, and J.A. Fox. 2003. "Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 16-29.
29. Lusk, J.L., and T.C. Schroeder. 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible?A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86: 467-82.
30. Manski, C.F. 1977. "The Structure of Random Utility Models." Theory and Decision 8: 229-54.
31. McFadden, D. 1973. "Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior." In P. Zarembka ed. Frontiers in Econometrics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 105-42.
32. McFadden, D., and K. Train. 2000. "Mixed MNL Models for Discrete Response." Journal of Applied Econometrics 15: 447-70.
33. Murphy, J.J., P.G. Allen, T.H. Stevens, and D. Weatherhead. 2005. "A Meta-Analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation." Environmental and Resource Economics 30: 313-25.
34. Murphy, E., B. Norwood, and M. Wohlgenant. 2004. "Do Economic Restrictions Improve Forecasts ?" Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 36: 549-58.
35. Norwood, F.B., J.L. Lusk, and B.W. Brorsen. 2004. "Model Selection for Discrete Dependent Variables: Better Statistics for Better Steaks." Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 29: 404-19.
36. Poe, G.L., K.L. Giraud, and Loomis, J.B. 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87: 353-65.
37. Revelt, D., and K. Train. 1998. "Mixed Logit with Repeated Choices: Households' Choices of Appliance Efficiency Level." Review of Economics and Statistics 80: 647-57.
38. Shogren, J.F., J.A. Fox, D.J. Hayes, and J. Roosen. 1999. "Observed for Food Safety in Retail, Survey, and Auction Markets." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81: 1192-99.
39. Swait, J., and M. Ben-Akiva. 1987. "Incorporating Random Constraints in Discrete Models of Choice Set Generation." Transportation Research B 21B: 91-102.
40. Swait, J., and J. Louviere. 1993. "The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Use of Multinomial Logit Models." Journal of Marketing Research 30: 305-14.
41. Train, K.E. 2003. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
42. Vossler, C.A., J. Kerkvliet, S. Polasky, and O. Gainutdinova. 2003. "Externally Validating Contingent Valuation: An Open Space Survey and Referendum in Corvallis, Oregon." Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 51: 261-77.
43. Vossler, C.A., and J. Kerkvliet. 2003. "A Criterion Validity Test of the Contingent Valuation Method: Comparing Hypothetical and Actual Voting Behavior for a Public Referendum." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45: 631-49.