A penny for your thoughts: Inducing truth-telling in stated preference elicitation

Economics Letters

Volumn 106, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 140-142

  Barrage, Lint ^a   Lee, Min Sok ^b  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b The Kenneth and Anne Griffin Foundation   (United States)

Author keywords

Bayesian truth serum; Cheap talk; Contingent valuation; Hypothetical bias; Stated preference

Indexed keywords

EID: 73249144830     PISSN: 01651765     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2009.11.006     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Aadland D., and Caplan A.J. Willingness to pay for curbside recycling with detection and mitigation of hypothetical bias. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85 (2003) 492-502
2. Aadland D., and Caplan A.J. CT reconsidered: new evidence from CVM. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 60 (2006) 562-578
3. Aadland D., Caplan A.J., and Phillips O.R. A Bayesian examination of the interaction between anchoring and CT in contingent valuation (2005), University of Wyoming, Working Paper
4. Brown T.C., Ajzen I., and Hrubes D. Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 46 (2003) 353-361
5. Carson R.T., Flores N.E., and Meade N.F. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics 19 (2001) 173-210
6. Carson R.T., Groves T., List J.A., and Machina M. Probabilistic influence and supplemental benefits-a field test of two key assumptions underlying stated preferences (2004), University of California, San Diego, Working Paper
7. Cummings R.G., and Taylor L.O. Does realism matter in contingent valuation surveys?. Land Economics 74 (1998) 203-215
8. Cummings R.G., and Taylor L.O. Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a CT design for the contingent valuation method. American Economic Review 89 (1999) 649-665
9. Cummings R.G., Elliott S., Harrison G., and Murphy J. Are hypothetical referenda incentive compatible?. Journal of Political Economy 105 (1997) 609-621
10. Diamond P.A., and Hausman J.A. Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number?. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 (1994) 45-64
11. Eagly A.H. Sex differences in influenceability. Psychological Bulletin 85 (1978) 86-116
12. Landry C.E., and List J.A. Using ex-ante approaches to obtain credible signals of value in contingent markets: evidence from the field. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89 (2007) 420-429
13. List J.A. Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures?. Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards, American Economic Review 91 (2001) 1498-1507
14. List J.A., and Gallet C. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values?. Environmental and Resource Economics 20 (2001) 241-254
15. List J.A., Margolis M., and Shogren J. Hypothetical-actual bid calibration of a multigood auction. Economics Letters 60 (1998) 263-268
16. Prelec D. A Bayesian truth serum for subjective data. Science 306 (2004) 462-466
17. Prelec D., and Weaver R.G. Creating truthtelling incentives with the Bayesian truth serum (2008), Draft Paper, Harvard Business School
18. Shogren J.F. Experimental methods and valuation. In: Mäler K.-G., and Vincent J.R. (Eds). Handbook of Environmental Economics Vol. 2 (2005), Elsevier Inc, San Diego 969-1027