The influence of cheap talk on willingness-to-pay ranges: Some empirical evidence from a contingent valuation study

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

Volumn 55, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 753-763

  Mahieu, Pierre Alexandre ^a   Riera, Pere ^b   Giergiczny, Marek ^c  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE ROUEN   (France)

^b UNIVERSITAT AUTÒNOMA DE BARCELONA   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW   (Poland)

Author keywords

cheap talk; contingent valuation; hypothetical bias; uncertainty; willingness to pay range

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 84863521600     PISSN: 09640568     EISSN: 13600559     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2011.626524     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Aadland, D. and Caplan, A. J. 2003. Willingness to pay for curbside recycling with detection and mitigation of hypothetical bias. American journal of agricultural economics, 85(2): 492-502.
2. Aadland, D. and Caplan, A. J. 2006. Cheap talk reconsidered: new evidence from CVM. Journal of economic behavior and organization, 60(4): 562-578.
3. Ami, D. 2011. A test of cheap talk in different hypothetical contexts: the case of air pollution. Environmental and resource economics, 50 (1), 111-130
4. Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G. and Prelec, D. 2003. 'Coherent arbitrariness': stable demand curves without stable preferences. Quarterly journal of economics, 118(1): 73-105.
5. Barrage, L. and Lee, M. S. 2010. A penny for your thoughts: inducing truth-telling in stated preference elicitation. Economics letters, 106(2): 140-142.
6. Bateman, I. J. 2005. Economic valuation of policies for managing acidity in remote mountain lakes: examining validity through scope sensitivity testing. Aquatic sciences, 67(3): 392-392.
7. Bateman, I. J. 2008. Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness. Journal of environmental economics and management, 55(2): 127-141.
8. Belyaev, Y. and Kristrom, B. 2010. Approach to analysis of self selected interval data. [online] Available from: http://www.cere.se/documents/wp/CERE_2010_2.pdf [Accessed 16 January 2012].
9. Blumenschein, K. 2008. Eliciting willingness to pay without bias: evidence from a field experiment. Economic journal, 118(525): 114-137.
10. Broberg, T. 2010. Income treatment effects in contingent valuation: the case of the Swedish predator policy. Environmental and resource economics, 46(1): 1-17.
11. Broberg, T. and Brannlund, R. 2008. An alternative interpretation of multiple bounded WTP data-certainty dependent payment card intervals. Resource and energy economics, 30(4): 555-567.
12. Brown, T. C., Ajzen, I. and Hrubes, D. 2003. Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation. Journal of environmental economics and management, 46(2): 353-361.
13. Bulte, E. 2005. The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated WTP values: evidence from a field study. Journal of environmental economics and management, 49(2): 330-342.
14. Cameron, T. A. 1988. A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. Journal of environmental economics and management, 15(3): 355-379.
15. Cameron, T. A. and Huppert, D. D. 1989. OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data. Journal of environmental economics and management, 17(3): 230-246.
16. Carlsson, F., Martinsson, P. and Akay, A. 2009. The effect of power outages and cheap talk on willingness to pay to reduce outages. [online] Available from: http://ftp.iza.org/dp4307.pdf [Accessed 16 January 2012].
17. Cummings, R. G. and Taylor, L. O. 1999. Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. American economic review, 89(3): 649-665.
18. Ellingson, L. 2009. Valuation uncertainty and maximum willingness to pay: a nonparametric comparison between elicitation formats. [online] Available from: http://www.webmeets.com/files/papers/EAERE/2009/785/eaere_1feb2009_submit.pdf [Accessed 16 January 2012].
19. Flachaire, E. and Hollard, G. 2007a. Model selection in iterative valuation questions. Revue d'economie politique, 117(5): 853-865.
20. Flachaire, E. and Hollard, G. 2007b. Starting point bias and respondent uncertainty in dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. Resource and energy economics, 29(3): 183-194.
21. Guzman, R. M. and Kolstad, C. D. 2007. Researching preferences, valuation and hypothetical bias. Environmental and resource economics, 37(3): 465-487.
22. Hakansson, C. 2008. A new valuation question: analysis of and insights from interval open-ended data in contingent valuation. Environmental and resource economics, 39(2): 175-188.
23. Hanemann, W. M. 1984. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data. American journal of agricultural economics, 66(4): 332-341.
24. Hanley, N., Kriström, B. and Shogren, J. F. 2009. Coherent arbitrariness: on value uncertainty for environmental goods. Land economics, 85(1): 41-50.
25. Harrison, G. 2006. Experimental evidence on alternative environmental valuation methods. Environmental and resource economics, 34(1): 125-162.
26. Jones-Lee, M. W., Loomes, G. and Philips, P. R. 1995. Valuing the prevention of non-fatal road injuries: contingent valuation vs. standard gambles. Oxford economic papers, 47(4): 676-695.
27. Ladenburg, J. and Olsen, S. B. 2008a. "The discovered preference hypothesis". In-An empirical test. [online] Available from: http://www.webmeets.com/files/papers/EAERE/2008/368/The% 20Discovered%20Preference%20Hypothesis%20%20-%20An%20empirical%20test.pdf [Accessed 16 January 2012].
28. Ladenburg, J. and Olsen, S. B. 2008b. Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: evidence from an empirical study. Journal of environmental economics and management, 56(3): 275-285.
29. Ladenburg, J. and Olsen, S. B. 2009. "Gender anomalies in experimental economics". In Are biases really gender dependent? In: Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 24-27 June 2009, Amsterdam, Netherlands
30. Landry, C. E. and List, J. A. 2007. Using ex ante approaches to obtain credible signals for value incontingent markets: evidence from the field. American journal of agricultural economics, 89(2): 420-429.
31. List, J. A. 2001. Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auctions for sportscards. American economic review, 91(5): 1498-1507.
32. List, J. A., Sinha, P. and Taylor, M. H. 2006. Using choice experiments to value non-market goods and services. Advances in economic analysis and policy, 6(2): 1-37.
33. Loureiro, M. L., Loomis, J. B. and Vazquez, M. X. 2009. Economic valuation of environmental damages due to the prestige oil spill in Spain. Environmental and resource economics, 44(4): 537-553.
34. Lusk, J. L. 2003. Effects of cheap talk on consumer willingness-to-pay for golden rice. American journal of agricultural economics, 85(4): 840-856.
35. Mahieu, P.A., 2010. Does gender matter when using cheap talk in contingent valuation studies? Economics Bulletin, 30 (4), 2955-2961
36. Mitchell, R. C. 2002. On designing constructed markets in valuation surveys. Environmental and resource economics, 22: 297-321.
37. Mitchell, R. C. and Carson, R. T. 1989. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method, Washington DC: Resources for the Future.
38. Morrison, M. and Brown, T. C. 2009. Testing the effectiveness of certainty scales, cheap talk, and dissonance-minimization in reducing hypothetical bias in contingent valuation studies. Environmental and resource economics, 44(3): 307-326.
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(10): 705-709.
40. Murphy, J. J. 2005a. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and resource economics, 30(3): 313-325.
41. Murphy, J. J., Stevens, T. H. and Weatherhead, D. 2005b. Is cheap talk effective at eliminating hypothetical bias in a provision point mechanism?. Environmental and resource economics, 30(3): 327-343.
42. Nayga, R. M., Wu, X. and Brummett, R. G. 2007. On the use of cheap talk in new product valuation. Economics bulletin, 2(1): 1-9.
43. Plott, R. C. 1996. "Rational individual behaviour in markets and social choice processes". In The rational foundations of economic behaviour, Edited by: Arrow, K. J., Colombatto, E., Perlman, M. and Schmidt, C. New York: St Martin's Press.
44. Samnaliev, M., Stevens, T. H. and More, T. 2003. A comparison of cheap talk and alternative uncertainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation. [online] Available from: http://people.umass.edu/resec/workingpapers/documents/resecworkingpaper2003-11.pdf [Accessed 17 January 2012].
45. Svedsater, H. 2007. Ambivalent statements in contingent valuation studies: inclusive response formats and giving respondents time to think. Australian journal of agricultural and resource economics, 51(1): 91-107.
46. Whitehead, J. C. and Cherry, T. L. 2007. Willingness to pay for a green energy program: a comparison of ex-ante and ex-post hypothetical bias mitigation approaches. Resource and energy economics, 29(4): 247-261.