Task familiarity and contextual cues predict hypothetical bias in a meta-analysis of stated preference studies

Ecological Economics

Volumn 81, Issue , 2012, Pages 44-47

  Schläpfer, Felix ^a,b   Fischhoff, Baruch ^c,d  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b Kalaidos University of Applied Sciences   (Switzerland)

^c CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84865074393     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.06.016     Document Type: Note

References (36)

1. Arrow K., Portney P.R., Leamer E.E., Radner R., Schuman H., Solow R. Report of the NOAA Panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 1993, 58:4601-4644.
2. Blumenschein K., Johannesson M., Yohoyama 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, 20:441-457.
3. Carlsson F. Design of stated preference surveys: is there more to learn from behavioural economics?. Environmental and Resource Economics 2010, 46:167-177.
4. Clemen R.T., Reilly T. Making Hard Decisions 2002, Duxbury, Boston.
5. Coupey E., Irwin J.R., Payne J.W. Product category familiarity and preference construction. Journal of Consumer Research 1998, 24:459-468.
6. Druckman J.N. Using credible advice to overcome framing effects. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 2001, 17:62-82.
7. Druckman J.N., Nelson K.R. Framing and deliberation: how citizens' conversations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science 2003, 47:729-745.
8. Ehmke M.D., Lusk J.L., List J.A. Is hypothetical bias a universal phenomenon? A multinational investigation. Land Economics 2008, 84:489-500.
9. Fischhoff B., Slovic P., Lichtenstein S. Knowing what you want: measuring labile values. Cognitive Processes in Choice and Decision Behavior 1980, 117-141. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J. T. Wallsten (Ed.).
10. Fischhoff B. Value elicitation: is there anything in there?. American Psychologist 1991, 46:835-847.
11. Fischhoff B., Bar-Hillel M. Focusing techniques: a shortcut to improving probability judgments?. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 1984, 34:175-191.
12. Fischhoff B., Welch N., Frederick S. Construal processes in preference assessment. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1999, 19:139-164.
13. Fischhoff B. Applying the science of communication to the communication of science. Climatic Change 2011, 108:701-705.
14. Fisher A. The conceptual underpinnings of the contingent valuation method. Methodological Issues and Research Needs 1996, 19-37. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, U. K. D.J. Bjornstad, J.R. Kahn (Eds.).
15. Flores N.E., Strong A. Cost credibility and the stated preference analysis of public goods. Resource and Energy Economics 2007, 29:195-205.
16. Hanley N., Shogren J.F. Is cost-benefit analysis anomaly-proof?. Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, 32:13-34.
17. Huffman W.E., Rousu M., Shogren J.F., Tegene A. The effects of prior beliefs and learning on consumers' acceptance of genetically modified foods. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 2007, 63:93-2006.
18. Johannesson M., Liljas B., Johansson P. An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions and real purchase decisions. Applied Economics 1998, 30:643-647.
19. Keeney R.L., Raiffa H. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Tradeoffs 1993, Cambridge University Press, New York.
20. The Construction of Preference 2005, Cambridge University Press, New York. S. Lichtenstein, P. Slovic (Eds.).
21. Little J.A., Berrens R. Explaining disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values: further investigation using meta-analysis. Economics Bulletin 2004, 3(6):1-13.
22. List J.A., Gallet C.A. What experimental protocol influence disparities of hypothetical and actual willingness to pay. Environmental and Resource Economics 2001, 20:241-254.
23. List J.A. Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures?. Evidence from field auctions for sportscards, American Economic Review 2001, 91:1498-1507.
24. List J.A. Using random nth price auctions to value non-market goods and services. Journal of Regulatory Economics 2003, 23:193-205.
25. Loomis J. What's to know about hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation studies?. Journal of Economic Surveys 2011, 25:262-370.
26. Lupia A. Shortcuts versus encyclopedias - information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review 1994, 88:63-76.
27. Morgan M.G., Fischhoff B., Bostrom A., Atman C. Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach 2001, Cambridge University Press, New York.
28. Murphy J.J., Allen P.G., Stevens T.H., Weatherhead D. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, 30:313-325.
29. Macmillan D.C., Philip L., Hanley N., Alvarez-Farizo B. Valuing the non-market benefits of wild goose conservation: a comparison of interview and group-based approaches. Ecological Economics 2002, 43:49-59.
30. Payne J.W., Bettman J.R., Schkade D.A. Measuring constructed preferences: towards a building code. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1999, 19:243-270.
31. Robinson, L.A., Hammitt, J.K., 2011. Behavioral economics and the conduct of benefit-cost analysis: towards principles and standards. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis 2, Article 5.
32. Schläpfer F., Schmitt M., Roschewitz A. Competitive politics, simplified heuristics, and preferences for public goods. Ecological Economics 2008, 65:574-589.
33. Slembeck T., Tyran J.R. Do institutions promote rationality? An experimental study of the three-door anomaly. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 2004, 54:337-350.
34. Spash C.L. Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change. Ecological Economics 2007, 63:690-699.
35. Vossler C.A., Kerkvliet J. A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2003, 45:631-649.
36. Vossler C.A., Kerkvliet J., Polasky S., Gainutdinova O. Externally validating contingent valuation: an open-space survey and referendum in Corvallis, Oregon. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 2003, 51:261-277.