A comparison of induced value and Home-grown value experiments to test for hypothetical bias in contingent valuation

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 47, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 111-123

  Murphy, James J ^a,b   Stevens, Thomas H ^b   Yadav, Lava ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Experiments; Home grown values; Hypothetical bias; Induced values

Indexed keywords

ECONOMICS; EXPERIMENTS;

CONTINGENT VALUATIONS; HOME-GROWN VALUES; HYPOTHETICAL BIAS; INDUCED VALUES; PUBLIC GOODS; VALUE ELICITATIONS; VALUE GOODS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

RESOURCE VALUATION;

COMMODITY PRICE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; PUBLIC GOODS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 77955852142     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-010-9367-4     Document Type: Article

References (40)

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: Evidence from CVM. Journal of Economics and Behavioral Organization 60(4): 562-578.
3. Becker G, DeGroot M, Marschak J (1964) Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behav Sci 9(3): 226-232.
4. Blumenschein K, Johannesson M, Blomquist GC, Liljas B, O'Conor RM (1998) All results on expressed certainty and hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. South Econ J 65(1): 169-177.
5. Brown TC, Ajzen I, Hrubes D (2003) Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 46(2): 353-361.
6. Burton AC, Carson KS, Chilton SM, Hutchinson WG (2003) An experimental investigation of explanations for inconsistencies in responses to second offers in double referenda. J Environ Econ Manag 46(3): 472-489.
7. Champ PA, Bishop RC, Brown TC, McCollum DW (1997) Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. J Environ Econ Manag 33(2): 151-162.
8. Champ PA, Bishop RC (2001) Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: an empirical study of hypothetical bias. Environ Resour Econ 19(4): 383-402.
9. Cherry TL, Frykblom P, Shogren J, List J, Williams M (2004) Laboratory testbeds and nonmarket valuation: the case of bidding behavior in a second price auction with an outside option. Environ Resour Econ 29(3): 285-294.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Gregory R, Lichenstein S, Brown TC, Peterson GL, Slovic P (1995) How precise are monetary representations of environmental improvements? Land Econ 71(4): 462-473.
13. Gregory R, Slovic P (1997) A constructive approach to environmental valuation. Ecol Econ 21(3): 175-181.
14. Harrison GW, Harstad RM, Rutström EE (2004) Experimental methods and elicitation of values. Exp Econ 7(2): 123-140.
15. Harrison GW, Rutström EE (2008) Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in Value Elicitation Methods. In: Plott CR, Smith VL Handbook of experimental economics results volume 1. North-Holland, New York.
16. Horowitz JK (2006) The Becker-DeGroot-Marschak mechanism is not necessarily incentive compatible, even for non-random goods. Econ Lett 93: 6-11.
17. Horowitz JK, McConnell KE, Murphy JJ Forthcoming. Behavioral foundations of environmental economics and valuation. In: List JA, Price MF (eds) Handbook on experimental economics and the environment. Northampton: Edward Elgar.
18. Irwin JR, McClelland GH, McKee M, Schulze WD, Norden NE (1998) Payoff dominance vs. cognitive transparency in decision making. Econ Inq 36(2): 272-285.
19. Johannesson M, Liljas B, Johansson P (1998) An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions and real purchase decisions. Appl Econ 30: 643-647.
20. Li C-Z, Mattsson L (1995) Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: an improved structural model for contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 28(2): 256-269.
21. List JA (2001) Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? evidence from field auctions for sports cards. Am Econ Rev 91(5): 1498-1507.
22. List JA, Gallet C (2001) What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environ Resour Econ 20(3): 241-254.
23. Lusk JL (2003) Willingness-to-pay for golden rice. Am J Agric Econ 85(4): 840-856.
24. Lusk JL, Rousu M (2006) Market price endogeneity and accuracy of value elicitation mechanisms. In: List JA Using experimental methods in environmental and resource economics. Edward Elgar, Northampton.
25. Mann HB, Whitney DR (1947) On a test whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann Math Stat 18: 50-60.
26. Mitani Y, Flores NE (2009) Demand revelation, hypothetical bias, and threshold public goods provision. Environ Resour Econ 44(2): 231-243.
27. Murphy JJ, Stevens TH (2004) Contingent valuation, hypothetical bias and experimental economics. Agric Resour Econ Rev 33(2): 182-192.
28. Murphy JJ, Stevens TH, Allen PG, Weatherhead D (2005) A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environ Resour Econ 30(3): 313-325.
29. Murphy JJ, Stevens TH, Weatherhead D (2005) Is cheap talk effective at eliminating hypothetical bias in a provision point mechanism? Environ Resour Econ 30(3): 327-343.
30. Noussair C, Robin S, Ruffieux B (2004) Revealing consumers' willingness-to-pay: a comparison of the BDM mechanism and the Vickrey auction. J Econ Psychol 25: 725-741.
31. Opaluch JJ, Segerson K (1989) Rational roots of 'irrational' behavior: new theories of economic decision-making. Northeastern J Agric Resour Econ 18(2): 81-95.
32. Plott CR, Zeiler K (2005) The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap, the "endowment effect," subject misconceptions, and the experimental procedures for eliciting evaluations. Am Econ Rev 95(3): 530-545.
33. Poe GL, Clark JE, Rondeau D, Schulze WD (2002) Provision point mechanisms and field validity tests of contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 23(1): 105-131.
34. Polomé P (2003) Experimental evidence on deliberate misrepresentation in referendum contingent valuation. J Econ Behav Organ 52((3): 387-401.
35. Schkade D, Payne JW (1994) How people respond to contingent valuation questions: a verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation. J Environ Econ Manag 26: 88-109.
36. Shogren JF, Margolis M, Koo C, List JA (2001) A random nth-price auction. J Econ Behav Organ 46(4): 409-421.
37. Taylor LO, McKee M, Laury SK, Cummings RG (2001) Induced-value tests of the referendum voting mechanism. Econ Lett 71(1): 61-65.
38. Vossler CA, McKee M (2006) Induced-value tests of contingent valuation elicitation mechanisms. Environ Resour Econ 35(2): 137-168.
39. Wang H (1997) Treatment of 'don't-know' responses in contingent valuation surveys: a random valuation model. J Environ Econ Manag 32(2): 219-232.
40. Wilcoxon F (1945) Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics 1: 80-83.