Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay

Transportation Research Part B: Methodological

Volumn 44, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 735-752

  Hensher, David A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Choice experiments; Contextual bias; Contingent valuation; Hypothetical bias; Referencing; Revealed behaviour; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

COMMERCE; RESOURCE VALUATION; TRAVEL TIME;

CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; CONTEXTUAL BIAS; CONTINGENT VALUATIONS; HYPOTHETICAL BIAS; REFERENCING; REVEALED BEHAVIOUR; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ECONOMICS;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; TRAVEL BEHAVIOR; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 77952885554     PISSN: 01912615     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.trb.2009.12.012     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Aadland D., Caplan A.J. Willingness to pay for curbside recycling with detection and mitigation of hypothetical bias. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2003, 85(3):492-502.
2. Alfnes, F., Steine, G., 2005. None-of-these Bias in Hypothetical Choice Experiments, Discussion Paper DP-06/05. Department of Economics and Resources Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Aas.
3. Alfnes F., Guttormsen A., Steine G., Kolstad K. Consumers' willingness to pay for the color of salmon: a choice experiment with real economic incentives. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2006, 88(4):1050-1061.
4. Anderson, S., Harrison, G., Lau, M., Rutström, E., 2007. Dual Criteria Decisions, Working Paper 06-11. Department of Economics, College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida.
5. Armstrong P.M., Garrido R.A., de D.Ortúzar J. Confidence intervals to bound the value of time. Transportation Research Part E 2001, 37(1):143-161.
6. Backhaus K., Wilken R., Voeth M., Sichtmann C. An empirical comparison of methods to measure willingness to pay by examining the hypothetical bias. International Journal of Market Research 2005, 47(5):543-562.
7. Ben-Akiva M.E., Bradley M., Morikawa T., Benjamin J., Novak T.P., Oppewal H., Rao V. Combining revealed and stated preferences data. Marketing Letters 1994, 5(4):336-350.
8. Blackburn M., Harrison G.W., Rutström E.E. Statistical bias functions and informative hypothetical surveys. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1994, 76(5):1084-1088.
9. Blumenschein K., Johannesson M., Blomquist G.C., Liljas B., O'Coner R.M. Experimental results on expressed certainty and hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Southern Economic Journal 1998, 65(1):169-177.
10. Blumenschein K., Johanneson M., Yokoyama K.K., Freeman P.R. Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment. Journal of Health Economics 2001, 20(3):441-457.
11. Brown T.C., Ajzen I., Hrubes D. Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2003, 46(2):353-361.
12. Brownstone D., Small K. Valuing time and reliability: assessing the evidence from road pricing demonstrations. Transportation Research Part A 2005, 39(3):279-293.
13. Cameron T.A., Poe G.L., Ethier R.G., Schulze W.D. Alternative non-market value-elicitation methods: are the underlying preferences the same?. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2002, 44(3):391-425.
14. Carlsson F., Martinsson P. Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments?. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2001, 41(2):179-192.
15. Carlsson F., Frykblom P., Lagerkvist C.-J. Using cheap-talk as a test of validity of choice experiments. Economics Letters 2005, 89(5):147-152.
16. Carson R., Flores E., Martin K., Wright J. Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Economics 1996, 72(1):80-99.
17. Cummings R.G., Taylor L.O. Does realism matter in contingent valuation surveys?. Land Economics 1998, 74(2):203-215.
18. Cummings R.G., Taylor L.O. Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. American Economic Review 1999, 89(3):649-665.
19. Cummings R.G., Harrison G.W., Rutström E.E. Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: is the dichotomous choice approach incentive compatible?. American Economic Review 1995, 85(1):260-266.
20. Cummings, R.G., Harrison, G.W., Osborne, L.L., 1995a. Can the Bias of Contingent Valuation be Reduced? Evidence from the laboratory, Economics Working Paper B-95-03. Division of Research, College of Business Administration, University of South Carolina. http://www.bus.ucf.edu/gharrison/wp/.
21. Diamond P., Hausman J. Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number. Journal of Economic Perspectives 1994, 8(4):45-64.
22. Ding M., Grewal R., Liechty J. An incentive-aligned mechanism for conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Research 2007, XLIV(2):214-223.
23. Foster V., Bateman I., Harley D. Real and hypothetical willingness to pay for environmental preservation: a non-experimental comparison. Journal of Agricultural Economics 1997, 48(1):123-138.
24. Fox J.A., Shogren J.F., Hayes D.J., Kliebenstein J.B. CVM-X: calibrating contingent values with experimental auction markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1998, 80:455-465.
25. Frykblom P. Hypothetical question modes and real willingness to pay. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1997, 34(2):274-287.
26. Fujii S., Gärling T. Application of attitude theory for improved predictive accuracy of stated preference methods in travel demand analysis. Transportation Research Part A 2003, 37(4):389-402.
27. Ghosh, A., 2001. Valuing time and reliability: commuters_mode choice from a real time congestion pricing experiment. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Economics, University of California at Irvine.
28. Gilboa I., Schmeidler D. A Theory of Case-based Decisions 2001, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
29. Greene W.H., Hensher D.A. Heteroscedastic control for random coefficients and error components in mixed logit. Transportation Research Part E 2007, 43(6):610-623.
30. Hanemann W. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives 1994, 8(4):19-43.
31. Harrison G.W. Experimental evidence of alternative environmental valuation methods. Environmental and Resource Economics 2006, 34(1):125-162.
32. Harrison G.W. Hypothetical bias over uncertain outcomes. Using Experimental Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics 2006, 41-69. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA. J.A. List (Ed.).
33. Harrison G.W. Making choice studies incentive compatible. Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Stated Choice Studies 2007, 7-110. Springer, The Netherlands. B. Kanninen (Ed.).
34. Harrison G.W., List J.A. Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature 2004, 42(4):1013-1059.
35. Harrison G.W., Rutström E.E. Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods. Handbook of Experimental Economics Results 2008, North-Holland, Amsterdam. C.R. Plott, V.L. Smith (Eds.).
36. Hensher D. Establishing a fare elasticity regime for urban passenger transport. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 1998, 32(2):221-246.
37. Hensher D.A. Measurement of the valuation of travel time savings. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 2001, 35(1):71-98.
38. Hensher D.A. A systematic assessment of the environmental impacts of transport policy: an end use perspective. Environmental and Resource Economics 2002, 22(1-2):185-217.
39. Hensher D.A. How do respondents handle stated choice experiments? - attribute processing strategies under varying information load. Journal of Applied Econometrics 2006, 21(5):861-878.
40. Hensher D.A. Integrating accident and travel delay externalities in an urban context. Transport Reviews 2006, 26(4):521-534.
41. Hensher D.A. Joint estimation of process and outcome in choice experiments and implications for willingness to pay. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 2008, 42(2):297-322.
42. Hensher D.A., Goodwin P.B. Implementation of values of time savings: the extended set of considerations in a toll road context. Transport Policy 2004, 11(2):171-181.
43. Hensher, D.A., Greene, W.H., 2009. Non-attendance and Dual Processing of Common-metric Attributes in Choice Analysis: A Latent Class Specification. Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, Empirical Economics, Published online 22 August 2009.
44. Hensher, D.A., Layton, D., 2008. Common-metric Attribute Parameter Transfer and Cognitive Rationalisation: Implications for Willingness to Pay. Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, July.
45. Hensher D.A., Rose J.F., Greene W.H. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer 2005, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
46. Hess S., Rose J.M., Hensher D.A. Asymmetrical preference formation in willingness to pay estimates in discrete choice models. Transportation Research Part E 2008, 44(5):847-863.
47. Isacsson, G., 2007. The Trade off Between Time and Money: Is There a Difference Between Real and Hypothetical Choices? Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, Borlange, Sweden.
48. Johannesson M., Blomquist G., Blumenschien K., Johansson P., Liljas B., O'Connor R. Calibrating hypothetical willingness to pay responses. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1999, 8(1):21-32.
49. Johansson-Stenman, O., Svedsäter, H., 2003. Self image and Choice Experiments: Hypothetical and Actual Willingness to Pay, Working Papers in Economics No. 94. Department of Economics, Gothenburg University.
50. Ladenburg, J., Olsen, S., Nielsen, R., 2007. Reducing Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments, Powerpoint Presentation. Institute of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
51. Landry C.E., List J.A. Using ex ante approaches to obtain credible signals for value in contingent markets: evidence from the field. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2007, 89(2):420-429.
52. List J.A. Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auctions for sportscards. American Economic Review 2001, 91(5):1498-1507.
53. List J., Gallet G. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values?. Environmental and Resource Economics 2001, 20(2):241-254.
54. List J., Sinha P., Taylor M. Using choice experiments to value non-market goods and services: evidence from field experiments. Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy 2006, 6(2):1132. .
55. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A. Combining sources of preference data. Travel Behaviour Research: The Leading Edge 2001, 125-144. Pergamon, Oxford. D.A. Hensher (Ed.).
56. Lusk J.L. Willingness to pay for golden rice. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2003, 85(4):840-856.
57. Lusk J., Schroeder T. Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2004, 86(2):467-482.
58. McClelland G.H., Judd C.M. The statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin 1993, 144(2):376-390.
59. Murphy, J., Allen, P., Stevens, T., Weatherhead, D., 2004. A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation. Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, January.
60. Murphy J., Allen P., Stevens T., Weatherhead D. Is cheap talk effective at eliminating hypothetical bias in a provision point mechanism?. Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, 30(3):313-325.
61. Ohler T., Li A., Louviere J., Swait J. Attribute range effects in binary response tasks. Marketing Letters 2000, 11(3):249-260.
62. Poe G., Giraud K., Loomis J. Simple computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions: application to internal and external scope tests in contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2005, 87(2):353-365.
63. Portney P.R. The contingent valuation debate: why economists should care. Journal of Economic Perspectives 1994, 8(4):3-17.
64. Rose J.M., Bliemer M.C.J. Stated preference experimental design strategies. Handbooks in Transport 2007, Elsevier Science, Oxford, (Chapter 8). vol. 1, Second ed. D.A. Hensher, K. Button (Eds.).
65. Rose J.M., Bliemer M.C., Hensher A.T., Collins Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives. Transportation Research Part B 2008, 42(4):395-406.
66. Seror V. Fitting observed and theoretical choices - women's choices about prenatal diagnosis of down syndrome. Health Economics 2007, 14(2):161-167.
67. Sillano M., de D.Ortúzar y.J. Willingness-to-pay estimation with mixed logit models: some new evidence. Environment and Planning A 2005, 37(5):525-550.
68. Steimetz Defensive driving and the external costs of accidents and travel delays. Transportation Research Part B 2008, 42(9):703-724.
69. Steimetz S., Brownstone D. Estimating commuters' " value of time" with noisy data: a multiple imputation approach. Transportation Research Part B 2005, 39(7):565-591.
70. Swait J. A Non-compensatory choice model incorporating attribute cut-offs. Transportation Research Part B 2001, 35(10):903-928.
71. Train K., Wilson W. Estimation on stated-preference experiments constructed from revealed-preference choice. Transportation Research Part B 2008, 40(2):191-203.
72. Tversky A., Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981, 211(4):453-458.
73. Wardman M. A review of British evidence on time and service quality valuations. Transportation Research Part E 2001, 37(2-3):107-128.