Testing the effectiveness of certainty scales, cheap talk, and dissonance-minimization in reducing hypothetical bias in contingent valuation studies

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 307-326

  Morrison, Mark ^a   Brown, Thomas C ^b  

^a CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Certainty scales; Cheap talk; Contingent valuation; Dissonance; Hypothetical bias

Indexed keywords

RESOURCE VALUATION;

CERTAINTY SCALES; CHEAP TALK; CONTINGENT VALUATIONS; DISSONANCE; HYPOTHETICAL BIAS;

ECONOMICS;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 76149121796     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-009-9287-3     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Aadland D, Caplan AJ (2003) Willingness to pay for curbside recycling with detection and mitigation of hypothetical bias. Am J Agric Econ 85(2): 492-502.
2. Aadland D, Caplan AJ (2006) Cheap talk reconsidered: new evidence from CVM. J Econ Behav Organ 60: 562-578.
3. Aadland DM, Caplan AJ, Phillips OR (2007) A Bayesian examination of information and uncertainty in contingent valuation. J Risk Uncertain 35: 149-178.
4. Ajzen I, Brown TC, Carvajal F (2004) Explaining the discrepancy between intentions and actions: the case of hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 30(9): 1108-1121.
5. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Regist 58: 4601-4614.
6. Bakeman R, Robinson BF (1994) Understanding log-linear analysis with ILOG: an interactive approach. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
7. Blamey RK, Bennett JW, Morrison MD (1999) Yea-saying in contingent valuation surveys. Land Econ 75(1): 126-141.
8. Blumenschein K, Johannesson M, Blomquist GC, Liljas B, O'Connor RM (1998) Experimental results on expressed certainty and hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. South Econ J 65(1): 169-177.
9. Blumenschein K, Johannesson M, Yokoyama KK, Freeman PR (2001) Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment. J Health Econ 20: 441-457.
10. Blumenschein K, Blomquist GC, Johannesson M, Horn N, Freeman P (2008) Eliciting willingness to pay without bias: evidence from a field experiment. Econ J 118(535): 114-137.
11. Brown TC, Ajzen I, Hrubes D (2003) Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 46(2): 353-361.
12. Brown TC, Champ PA, Bishop RC, McCollum DW (1996) Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good?. Land Econ 72(2): 152-166.
13. Carlsson F, Frykblom P, Lagerkvist CJ (2005) Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments. Econ Lett 89: 147-152.
14. Champ PA, Bishop RC (2001) Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: an empirical study of hypothetical bias. Environ Resource Econ 19: 383-402.
15. Champ PA, Bishop RC, Brown TC, McCollum DW (1997) Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. J Environ Econ Manage 33: 151-162.
16. Cummings RG, Taylor LO (1999) Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am Econ Rev 89(3): 649-665.
17. Cummings RG, Harrison GW, Rutstrom EE (1995a) Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: is the dichotomous choice approach incentive-compatible?. Am Econ Rev 85(1): 260-266.
18. Cummings RG, Harrison GW, Taylor LO (1995b) Can the bias of contingent valuation surveys be reduced? Evidence from the laboratory. Georgia State University, Atlanta.
19. Dubourg WR, Jones-Lee MW, Loomes G (1997) Imprecise preferences and survey design in contingent valuation. Economica 64: 681-702.
20. Ethier RG, Poe GL, Schulze WD, Clark J (2000) A comparison of hypothetical phone and mail contingent valuation responses for green-pricing electricity programs. Land Econ 76(1): 54-67.
21. Gregory R, Lichtenstein S, Brown TC, Peterson GL, Slovic P (1995) How precise are monetary representations of environmental improvements?. Land Econ 71(4): 462-473.
22. Haab TC, McConnell KE (2002) Valuing environmental and natural resources. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
23. Johannesson M, Liljas B, Johansson P-O (1998) An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions and real purchase decisons. Appl Econ 30: 643-647.
24. Kahneman D, Ritov I, Schkade D (1999) Economic preferences or attitude expressions? An analysis of dollar responses to public issues. J Risk Uncertain 19(1-3): 203-235.
25. LaPiere RT (1934) Attitudes vs. actions. Social Forces 13(2): 230-237.
26. Li C-Z, Mattsson L (1995) Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: an improved structural model for contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 28: 256-269.
27. List JA (2001) Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auctions for sportscards. Am Econ Rev 91(5): 1498-1507.
28. List JA, Gallet CA (2001) What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values?. Environ Resource Econ 20: 241-254.
29. List JA, Sinha P, Taylor MH (2006) Using choice experiments to value non-market goods and services: evidence from field experiments. Adv Econ Anal Policy (Berkeley Electronic Press) 6(2), article 2.
30. Little J, Berrens R (2004) Explaining disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values: further investigation using meta-analysis. Econ Bull 3(6): 1-13.
31. Loomis J, Ekstrand E (1998) Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: the case of the Mexican spotted owl. Ecol Econ 27(1): 29-41.
32. Loomis J, Brown T, Lucero B, Peterson G (1996) Improving validity experiments of contingent valuation methods: results of efforts to reduce the disparity of hypothetical and actual WTP. Land Econ 72(4): 450-461.
33. Loomis J, Traynor K, Brown T (1999) Trichotomous choice: a possible solution to dual response objectives in dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions. J Agric Resour Econ 24(2): 572-583.
34. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge University Press, New York.
35. Lusk JL (2003) Effects of cheap talk on consumer willingness-to-pay for golden rice. Am J Agric Econ 85(4): 840-856.
36. Madariaga B, McConnell KE (1987) Exploring existence values. Water Resour Res 23(5): 936-942.
37. Mitani Y, Flores N (2007) Hypothetical and real bias in threshold public goods experiments. University of Colorado, Boulder.
38. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resour Future, Washington, D C.
39. Murphy JJ, Stevens TH (2004) Contingent valuation, hypothetical bias, and experimental economics. Agric Resour Econ Rev 33(2): 182-192.
40. Murphy JJ, Allen PG, Stevens TH, Weatherhead D (2005a) A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environ Resource Econ 30: 313-325.
41. Murphy JJ, Stevens TH, Weatherhead D (2005b) Is cheap talk effective at eliminating hypothetical bias in a provision point mechanism?. Environ Resource Econ 30: 327-343.
42. Norwood FB (2005) Can calibration reconcile stated and observed preferences?. J Agric Appl Econ 37: 237-248.
43. Opaluch JJ, Segerson K (1989) Rational roots of "irrational" behavior: new theories of economic decision-making. Northeast J Agric Econ 18: 81-95.
44. Poe GL, Clarke J, Rondeau D, Schulze WD (2002) Provision point mechanisms and field validity tests of contingent valuation. Environ Resource Econ 23: 105-131.
45. Ready RC, Whitehead JC, Blomquist GC (1995) Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent. J Environ Econ Manage 29: 181-196.
46. Ready RC, Navrud S, Dubourg RW (2001) How do respondents with uncertain willingness to pay answer contingent valuation questions?. Land Econ 77(3): 315-326.
47. Reber AS (1985) The penguin dictionary of psychology. Penguin Books, London.
48. Sinden JA (1988) Emperical tests of hypothetical bias in consumers' surplus surveys. Aust J Agric Econ 32(2/3): 98-112.
49. Taylor LO (1998) Incentive compatible referenda and the valuation of environmental goods. Agric Resour Econ Rev 27(2): 132-139.
50. Taylor LO, McKee M, Laury SK, Cummings RG (2001) Induced-value tests of the referendum voting mechanism. Econ Lett 71(1): 61-65.
51. Vossler CA, McKee M (2006) Induced-value tests of contingent valuation elicitation mechanisms. Environ Resource Econ 35(2): 137-168.
52. Wang H (1997) Treatment of "don't-know" responses in contingent valuation surveys: a random valuation model. J Environ Econ Manage 32(2): 219-232.