Social context, financial stakes and hypothetical bias: An induced value referendum experiment

Applied Economics

Volumn 43, Issue 29, 2011, Pages 4487-4499

  Mozumder, Pallab ^a   Berrens, Robert P ^b  

^a FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; PUBLIC GOODS; REFERENDUM;

EID: 80051763967     PISSN: 00036846     EISSN: 14664283     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2010.491468     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Akerlof, G. A. and Kranton, R. E. (2005) Identity and the economics of organizations, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 9-32.
2. Alpizar, F., Carlsson, F. and Johansson-Stenman, O. (2008a) Does context matter more for hypothetical than for actual contributions? Evidence from a natural field experiment, Experimental Economics, 11, 299-314.
3. Alpizar, F., Carlsson, F. and Johansson-Stenman, O. (2008b) Anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity: Evidence from voluntary contributions to a national park in Costa Rica, Journal of Public Economics, 92, 1047-60.
4. Arrow, K. (1987) Rationality of self and others in an economic system, in Rational Choice: The Contrast Between Economics and Psychology, (Eds) R. Hogarth and M. Reder, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
5. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P. R., Leamer, E. E, Radner, R. and Schuman, H. (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation, Federal Register, 58, 4601-14.
6. Berrens, R. P. (2000) Reluctant respondents and contingent valuation surveys, Applied Economics Letters, 7, 263-6.
7. Berrens, R., Jenkins-Smith, H., Bohara, A. and Silva, C. (2002) Further investigations of voluntary contribution contingent valuation: Fair share, time of contribution, and respondent uncertainty, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44, 144-68.
8. Blumenschein, K., Blomquist, G. C., Johannesson, M., Horn, N. and Freeman, P. (2008) Eliciting willingness to pay without bias: Evidence from a field experiment, Economic Journal, 118, 114-37.
9. Botelho, A. and Pinto, L. C. (2002) Hypothetical, real, and predicted real willingness to pay in open-ended surveys: Experimental results, Applied Economics Letters, 9, 993-6.
10. Brouwer, R. (2010) A mixed approach to payment certainty calibration in discrete choice welfare estimation, Applied Economics, forthcoming. Burton, A., Carson, K., Chilton, S. and Hutchinson, W. G. (2007) Resolving questions about bias in real and hypothetical referenda, Environmental and Resource Economics, 38, 513-25.
11. Carson, R. and Groves, T. (2007) Incentive and informational properties of preference questions, Environmental and Resource Economics, 37, 181-210.
12. Champ, P., Boyle, K. and Brown, T. (2003) A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation, (Series Ed.) I. J. Bateman, Kluwer Academic Press, Boston, MA. Champ, P. A., Flores, N. E., Brown, T. C. and Chivers, J. (2002) Contingent valuation and incentives, Land Economics, 78, 591-604.
13. Charness, G. and Rabin, M. (2002) Understanding social preferences with simple tests, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 817-69. Cherry, T., Frykblom, P., Shogren, J., List, J. and
14. Cherry, T., Frykblom, P., Shogren, J., List, J and Sullivan, M. (2004) Laboratory testbeds and nonmarket valuation: The case of bidding behavior in a second-price auction with an outside option, Environmental and Resource Economics, 29, 285-94.
15. Crocker, T. D. and Shogren, J. F. (1991) Ex ante valuation of atmospheric visibility, Applied Economics, 23, 143-51. Cummings, R. G., Elliot, S., Harrison, G. W. and
16. Cummings, R. G., Elliot, S., Harrison, G. W and Murphy, J. (1997) Are hypothetical referenda incentive compatible?, Journal of Political Economy, 105, 609-21.
17. Davis, J. (2004) Assessing community preferences for development projects: Are willingness-to-pay studies robust to mode effects?, World Development, 32, 655-72.
18. DeMaio, T. J. (1984) Social desirability and survey measurement: A review, in Surveying Subjective Phenomena, Vol. 2 (Eds) C. F. Turner and E. Martin, Russell Sage Foundation, New York.
19. Dillman, D. A. (1996) Letter to the office of policy, planning and evaluation, US Environmental Protection Agency, 1993, reprinted in The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources: Methodical Issues and Research Needs, (Eds) D. Bjornstad and J. R. Kahn, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. Ethier, R. G., Poe, G. L., Schulze, W. D. and Clark, J. (2000) A comparison of hypothetical phone and mail contingent valuation responses for green-pricing electricity programs, Land Economics, 76, 54-67.
20. Ferraro, P., Rondeau, D. and Poe, G. L. (2003) Detecting other-regarding behavior with virtual players, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 51, 99-109.
21. Fischhoff, B. and Furby, L. (1988) Measuring values: a conceptual framework for interpreting transactions with special reference to contingent valuation of visibility, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 147-84.
22. Frey, B. S. and Oberholzer-Gee, F. (1997) The cost of price incentives: An empirical analysis of motivation crowding-out, American Economic Review, 87, 746-55.
23. Harrison, G. W. (2006a) Hypothetical bias over uncertain outcomes, in Using Experimental Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics, (Ed.) J. A. List, Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA.
24. Harrison, G. W. (2006b) Experimental evidence on alternative environmental valuation methods, Environmental and Resource Economics, 34, 125-62.
25. Harrison, G. and List, J. A. (2004) Field experiments, Journal of Economic Literature, 42, 1013-59.
26. Johansson, P. (1990) Willingness to pay measures and expectations: An experiment, Applied Economics, 22, 313-29.
27. Katosh, J. and Traugott, M. (1981) The consequences of validated and self-reported voting measures, Public Opinion Quarterly, 45, 519-35.
28. Katz, M. L. and Shapiro, C. (1985) Network externalities, competition, and compatibility, American Economic Review, 75, 424-40.
29. Laughland, A. S., Musser, W. N. and Musser, L. M. (1994) An experiment in contingent valuation and social desirability, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 23, 29-36.
30. Ledyard, J. O. (1995) Public goods: A survey of experimental research, in The Handbook of Experimental Economics, (Eds) J. H. Kagel and A. E. Roth, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
31. Leggett, C., Kleckner, N., Boyle, K., Duffield, J and Mitchell, R. (2003) Social desirability bias in contingent valuation surveys administered through in-person interviews, Land Economics, 79, 561-75.
32. Levitt, S. D. and List, J. A. (2007) What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences tell us about the real world, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21, 153-74.
33. List, J., Berrens, R., Bohara, A. and Kerkvliet, J. (2004) Examining the role of social isolation on stated preferences, American Economic Review, 94, 741-52.
34. Little, J. and Berrens, R. (2004) Explaining disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values: Further investigation using meta-analysis, Economics Bulletin, 3, 1-13.
35. Loomis, J. (2005) Economic values without prices: The importance of nonmarket values and valuation for informing public policy debates, Choices, 20, 179-82.
36. Masclet, D., Noussair, C., Tucker, S. and Villeval, M. (2003) Monetary and non-monetary punishment in the voluntary contributions mechanism, American Economic Review, 93, 366-80.
37. Messer, K., Zarghamee, H., Kaiser, H. and Schulze, W. (2007) New hope for the voluntary contribution mechanism: The effects of context, Journal of Public Economics, 91, 1783-99.
38. Mitchell, R. C. and Carson, R. T. (1989) Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
39. Mozumder, P. and Berrens, R. P. (2007) Investigating hypothetical bias: Induced-value tests of the referendum voting mechanism with uncertainty, Applied Economics Letters, 14, 705-9.
40. Murphy, J., Allen, G. and Stevens, T. (2005) A metaanalysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation, Environmental and Resource Economics, 30, 313-25.
41. Paradiso, M. and Trisorio, A. (2001) The effect of knowledge on the disparity between hypothetical and real willingness to pay, Applied Economics, 33, 1359-64.
42. Poe, G. L., Clark, J. E., Rondeau, D. and Schulze, W. D. (2002) Provision point mechanisms and field validity tests of contingent valuation, Environmental and Resource Economics, 23, 105-31.
43. Powe, N. A., Willis, K. G. and Garrod, G. G. (2006) Difficulties in valuing street light improvement: Trust, surprise and bound effects, Applied Economics, 38, 371-81.
44. Prante, T., Thacher, J. and Berrens, R. (2007) Evaluating coasean bargaining experiments with meta-analysis, Economics Bulletin, 3, 1-7.
45. Ready, R. C., Navrud, S. and Dubourg, W. R. (2001) How do respondents with uncertain willingness to pay answer contingent valuation questions?, Land Economics, 77, 315-26.
46. Rege, M. and Telle, K. (2004) The impact of social approval and framing on cooperation in public good situations, Journal of Public Economics, 88, 1625-44.
47. Schkade, D. A. and Payne, J. W. (1994) How people respond to contingent valuation questions-a verbal protocol analysis of willingness-to-pay for an environmental regulation, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26, 88-109.
48. Shafran, A. (2008) Risk externalities and the problem of wildfire risk, Journal of Urban Economics, 64, 488-95.
49. Shogren, J. (2002) A behavioral mindset on environment policy, Journal of Socio-Economics, 31, 355-69.
50. Shogren, J. (2005) Experimental methods and valuation, in Handbook of Environmental Economics, (Eds) K. G. Mäler and J. Vincent, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
51. Shogren, J. (2006) Valuation in the lab, Environmental and Resource Economics, 34, 1573-602.
52. Slovic, P., Griffin, D. and Tversky, A. (1990) Compatibility effects in judgment and choice, in Insights in Decision Making: A Tribute to H. J. Einhom, (Ed.) R. M. Hogarth, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
53. Smith, V. K. (1999) Of birds and books: More on hypothetical referenda, Journal of Political Economy, 107, 197-200.
54. Taylor, L., McKee, M., Laury, S. and Cummings, R. (2001) Induced-value tests of the referendum voting mechanism, Economics Letters, 71, 61-5.
55. Vatn, A. (2004) Environmental valuation and rationality, Land Economics, 80, 1-18.
56. Vatn, A. and Bromley, D. W. (1994) Choices without prices without apologies, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26, 129-48.
57. Veisten, K. and Navrud, S. (2006) Contingent valuation and actual payment for voluntarily provided passive-use values: Assessing the effect of an induced truth-telling mechanism and elicitation formats, Applied Economics, 38, 735-56.
58. Vossler, C. A. and McKee, M. (2006) Induced-value tests of contingent valuation elicitation mechanisms, Environmental and Resource Economics, 35, 137-68.
59. Welch, N. and Fischhoff, B. (2001) The social context of contingent valuation transactions, Society and Natural Resources, 14, 1-13.
60. Whitehead, J. C. (1992) Ex ante willingness to pay with supply and demand uncertainty: Implications for valuing a sea turtle protection program, Applied Economics, 24, 981-8.
61. Whitehead, J. C. (1993) Total economic values for coastal and marine wildlife: Specification, validity and valuation issues, Marine Resource Economics, 8, 119-32.
62. Wu, P. I. and Huang, C. L. (2001) Actual averting expenditure versus stated willingness to pay, Applied Economics, 33, 277-83.