Demand revelation, hypothetical bias, and threshold public goods provision

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 44, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 231-243

  Mitani, Yohei ^a   Flores, Nicholas E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

Demand revelation; Gender differences; Hypothetical bias; Induced value; Stated preference methods; Threshold public goods experiments

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH;

DEMAND REVELATION; GENDER DIFFERENCES; HYPOTHETICAL BIAS; INDUCED-VALUE; PUBLIC GOODS; STATED PREFERENCE METHOD;

SOCIAL SCIENCES;

DEMAND ANALYSIS; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; PUBLIC GOODS; SOCIOECONOMIC SURVEY; THRESHOLD;

EID: 76149105147     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-009-9281-9     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Andreoni J, Croson R (2008) Partners versus strangers: the effect of random rematching in public goods experiments. In: Plott CR, Smith VL(eds) Handbook of experimental economics results. Elsevier Press, New York.
2. Brown KM, Taylor LO (2000) Do as you say, say as you do: evidence on gender differences in actual and stated contributions to public goods. J Econ Behav Organ 43: 127-139.
3. Brown-Kruse J, Hummels D (1993) Gender effects in laboratory public goods contribution: do individuals put their money where their mouth is?. J Econ Behav Organ 22: 255-267.
4. Burton AC, Carson KS, Chilton SM, Hutchinson WG (2007) Resolving questions about bias in real and hypothetical referenda. Environ Resour Econ 38: 513-525.
5. Cadsby CB, Maynes E (1998) Gender and free riding in a threshold public goods game: experimental evidence. J Econ Behav Organ 34: 603-620.
6. Cadsby CB, Maynes E (1999) Voluntary provision of threshold public goods with continuous contributions: experimental evidence. J Public Econ 71: 53-73.
7. Cadsby CB, Hamaguchi Y, Kawagoe T, Maynes E, Song F (2007) Cross-national gender differences in behavior in a threshold public goods game: Japan versus Canada. J Econ Psychol 28: 242-260.
8. Camerer CF (2003) Behavioral game theory: experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton University Press, New Jersey.
9. Camerer CF, Hogarth RM (1999) The effects of financial incentives in experiments: a review and capital-labor-production framework. J Risk Uncertain 19: 7-42.
10. Cotten SJ, Ferraro PJ, Vossler CA (2008) Can public goods experiments inform policy? Reducing confusion among experiment participants. In: Cherry TL, Shogren JF, Kroll S(eds) Environmental economics, experimental methods. Routledge, UK.
11. Cox JC, Deck CA (2006) When are women more generous than men?. Econ Inq 44: 587-598.
12. Croson R, Marks M (1998) Identifiability of individual contributions in a threshold public goods experiment. J Math Psychol 42: 167-190.
13. Eckel CC, Grossman PJ (1998) Are women less selfish than men?: evidence from dictator experiments. Econ J 108: 726-735.
14. Ferraro PJ, Rondeau D, Poe GL (2003) Detecting other-regarding behavior with virtual players. J Econ Behav Organ 51: 99-109.
15. Fischbacher U, Gächter S, Fehr E (2001) Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Econ Lett 71: 397-404.
16. Gilligan C (1982) In a different voice: psychological theory and women's development. Harvard University Press, Harvard.
17. Gunnthorsdottir A, Houser D, McCabe K (2007) Disposition, history and contributions in public goods experiments. J Econ Behav Organ 62: 304-315.
18. Hertwig R, Ortmann A (2001) Experimental practices in economics: a methodological challenge for psychologists?. Behav Brain Sci 24: 383-451.
19. Johansson-Stenman O, Svedsäter H (2007) Hypothetical bias in choice experiments: within versus between subject tests. Working papers in economics No 252, University of Gothenburg.
20. Keser C, Winden F (2000) Conditional cooperation and voluntary contributions to public goods. Scand J Econ 102: 23-39.
21. Levin IP (1999) Relating statistics and experimental design: an introduction (Quantitative applications in the social sciences), vol 125. SAGE University Paper, Thousand Oaks, CA.
22. List JA, Gallet CA (2001) What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values?: evidence from a meta-analysis. Environ Res Econ 20: 241-254.
23. Mitani Y, Flores N (2007) Does gender matter for demand revelation in threshold public goods experiments?. Econ Bull 3(27): 1-7.
24. Murphy JJ, Allen PG, Stevens TH, Weatherhead D (2005) A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environ Res Econ 30: 313-325.
25. Polome P (2003) Experimental evidence on deliberate misrepresentation in referendum contingent valuation. J Econ Behav Organ 52: 387-401.
26. Rondeau D, Poe GL, Schulze WD (2005) VCM or PPM? A Comparison of the performance of two voluntary public goods mechanisms. J Public Econ 89: 1581-1592.
27. Smith VL, Walker JM (1993) Rewards, experience and decision costs in first price auctions. Econ Inq 31: 237-244.
28. Taylor LO, McKee M, Laury SK, Cummings RG (2001) Induced-value tests of the referendum voting mechanism. Econ Lett 71: 61-65.
29. Vossler CA, Mckee M (2006) Induced-value tests of contingent valuation elicitation mechanisms. Environ Res Econ 35: 137-168.