Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand

Ecological Economics

Volumn 87, Issue , 2013, Pages 53-61

  Araña, Jorge E ^a,b   León, Carmelo J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LAS PALMAS DE GRAN CANARIA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Choice experiments; Corporate social responsibility; Hypothetical bias; Non market valuation

Indexed keywords

COPING STRATEGY; DEMAND ANALYSIS; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; MARKET SYSTEM; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; VALUATION;

EID: 84872710199     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.12.005     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Adamowicz W., Louviere J.J., Williams M. Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1994, 26:271-292.
2. Andersen S., Harrison G.W., Lau M.I., Rutström E.E. Preference heterogeneity in experiments: comparing the field and laboratory. Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization 2010, 73(2):209-224. (Elsevier).
3. Araña J.E., León C.J. Modelling unobserved heterogeneity in contingent valuation of health risks. Applied Economics 2006, 38:2315-2325.
4. Araña J.E., León C.J. Repeated Dichotomous Choice Formats for Elicitation of Willingness to Pay: simultaneous Estimation and Anchoring Effect. Environmental and Resource Economics 2007, 36(4):475-497.
5. Araña J.E., León C.J., Hanemann M.W. Choosing how to Choose: heuristic Heterogeneity and Convergent Validity in Stated Preference Methods. Journal of Health Economics 2008.
6. Araña J.E., León C.J. Understanding the use of non-compensatory decision rules in discrete choice experiments: the role of emotions. Ecological Economics 2009, 68(8-9):2316-2326.
7. Araña J.E., León C.J. Can Defaults Save the Climate? Evidence from a Field Experiment on Carbon Offsetting Programs. Environmental and Resource Economics 2012 2012, 10.1007/s10640-012-9615-x.
8. Araña J.E., Leon C.J. Scale Perception Bias in the Valuation of Environmental Risks. Applied Economics 2012, 44:2607-2617.
9. Araña J.E., León C.J., Moreno-Gil S., Zubiaurre A.R. A Comparison of Tourists' Valuation of Climate Change Policy Using Different Pricing Frames. Journal of Travel Research 2013, 52(1):82-92.
10. Auger P., Burke P., Devinney T.M., Louviere J. What will consumers pay for social product features?. Journal of Business Ethics 2003, 42:281-304.
11. Axsen J., Mountain D.C., Jaccard M. Combining stated and revealed choice research to simulate the neighbor effect: the case of hybrid-electric vehicles. Resource and Energy Economics 2009, 31:221-238.
12. Bass F.M. A new-product growth model for consumer durables. Management Science 1969, 15:215-227.
13. Bateman I.J., Burgess D., Hutchinson W.G., Matthews D.I. Contrasting NOAA guidelines with Learning Design Contingent Valuation (LDCV): preference learning versus coherent arbitrariness. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2008, 55:127-141.
14. Beharry-Borg N., Scarpa R. Valuing quality changes in Caribbean coastal waters for heterogeneous beach visitors. Ecological Economics 2010, 69:1124-1139.
15. Ben-Akiva M., Morikawa T. Estimation of mode switching models from revealed preferences and stated intentions. Transportation Research Part A 1990, 24A:485-495.
16. 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.
17. Brown T.J., Dacin P.A. The company and the product: corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing 1997, 61:68-84.
18. 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.
19. Carlsson F., Johansson-Stenman O. Scale factors and hypothetical referenda: a clarifying note. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2010, 59:286-292.
20. Carlsson F., Martinsson P. Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2001, 41:179-192.
21. Carlsson F., Frykblom P., Lagerkvist C.J. Using cheap-talk as a test of validity in choice experiments. Economics Letters 2005, 89:147-152.
22. Carson R., Czajkowski M. The Discrete Choice Experiment Approach to Environmental Contingent Valuation. CenSoC Working Paper No. 12-003 2012.
23. Carson R., Groves T. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics 2007, 37(1):181-210.
24. Champ P., Bishop R.C. Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: an empirical study of hypothetical bias. Environmental and Resource Economics 2001, 19(4):383-402.
25. Chang J.B., Lusk J., Norwood F.B. How closely do hypothetical surveys and laboratory experiments predict field behaviour. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2009, 91:518-534.
26. Creyer E., Ross W. The influence of firm behaviour on purchase intentions: do consumers really care about business ethics?. Journal of Consumer Marketing 1997, 14(6):421-436.
27. Crouch G.I., Devinney T.M., Louviere J.J., Islam T. Modelling consumer choice behaviour in space tourism. Tourism Management 2009, 30(3):441-454.
28. 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.
29. Davids M. The champion of corporate social responsibility. Bussiness and Society Review 1990, 74:40-43.
30. Ehmke M.D., Lusk J.L., List J.A. Is hypothetical bias a universal phenomenon? A multinational investigation. Land Economics 2008, 84(3):489-500.
31. Ellen P., Mohr L., Webb D. Charitable programs and the retailer: do they mix?. Journal of Retailing 2000, 76(3):393-406.
32. Fiebig D., Keane M., Louviere J., Wasi N. The generalized multinomial logit model: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Marketing Science 2010, 29(3):393-421.
33. Fifer S., Rose J.M., Greaves S.P. Hypothetical bias in Stated Choice Experiments: is it a problem? And if so, how do we deal with it? 2012, 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board TRB 2012, Washington DC, United States.
34. Foster V., Mourato S. Valuing the multiple impacts of pesticide use in the UK: a contingent ranking approach. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2000, 51:1-21.
35. Guzman R.M., Kolstad C.D. Researching preferences, valuation and hypothetical bias. Environmental and Resource Economics 2007, 37:465-487.
36. Hanley N., Wright R.E., Adamowicz W.L. Using choice experiments to value the environment - design issues, current experience and future prospects. Environmetal and Resource Economics 1998, 11:413-428.
37. Hanley N., Mourato S., Wright R.E. Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation?. Journal of Economic Surveys 2001, 15.
38. Harrison G.W., List J.A. Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature 2004, 42(4):1013-1059.
39. Hensher D.A. Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay. Transportation Research Part B 2010, 44:735-744.
40. Hoyos D. The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecological Economics 2010, 69(2):2372-2381.
41. 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.
42. Johansson-Stenman O., Svedsäter H. Self image and Choice Experiments: Hypothetical and Actual Willingness to Pay. Working Papers in Economics. No. 94 2003, Department of Economics, Gothenburg University.
43. Johansson-Stenman O., Svedsäter H. Measuring hypothetical bias in choice experiments: the importance of cognitive consistency. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 2008, 8(1). (Article 41).
44. Johansson-Stenman, O., Svedsäter, H. (forthcoming). Self-Image and Valuation of Moral Goods: Stated versus Actual Willingness to Pay. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2012.10.006.
45. Kahneman D., Krueger A.B., Schkade D., Schwarz N., Stone A.A. A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: the day reconstruction method. Science 2004, 306:1776-1780.
46. Kang M.J., Rangel A., Camus M., Camerer C.F. Hypothetical and real choice differentially activate common valuation areas. The Journal of Neuroscience 2011, 31(2):461-468.
47. Kealy M.J., Montgomery M., Dovidio J.F. Reliability and predictive validity of contingent values: does the nature of the good matter?. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1990, 19:244-263.
48. Lafferty B., Goldsmith R. Corporate credibility's role in consumer's attitudes and purchase intentions when a high versus a low credibility endorser is used in the ad. Journal of Business Research 1999, 44(2):109-116.
49. León C.J., Araña J.E. The dynamics of preference elicitation after an environmental disaster: stability and emotional load. Land Economics 2012, 88(2):362-381.
50. List J.A., Gallet C.A. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Environmental and Resource Economics 2001, 20(3):241-254.
51. Little J.M., Berrens R. Explaining disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values: further investigation using meta-analysis. Economics Bulletin 2004, 3(6):1-12.
52. Loewenstein G., Ubel P. Hedonic adaptation and the role of decision and experience utility in public policy. Journal of Public Economics 2008, 92(8):1195-1205.
53. Loomis J.B. Test-retest reliability of the contingent valuation method: a comparison of general population and visitor responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1990, 71:76-84.
54. Louviere J.J., Hensher D., Swait J. Stated Choice Methods. Analysis and Applications 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
55. Louviere J., Islam Towhidul, Wasi Nada, Street Deborah J., Burgess Leonie Designing discrete choice experiments: do optimal designs come at a price?. Journal of Consumer Research 2008, 35(2):360-375.
56. Lusk J.L. Willingness to pay for golden rice. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2003, 85(4):840-856.
57. Lusk J.L., Norwood F.B. Bridging the gap between laboratory experiments and naturally occurring markets: an inferred valuation method. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2009, 58:236-250.
58. Lusk J.L., Norwood F.B. An inferred valuation method. Land Economics 2009, 85:500-514.
59. 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.
60. Mau P., Eyzaguirre J., Jaccard M., Collins-Dodd C., Tiedemann K. 'The neighbour effect': simulating dynamics in consumer preferences for new vehicle technologies. Ecological Economics 2008, 68(1):504-516.
61. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. Frontiers in Econometrics 1974, 105-142. Academic Press, New York. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
62. Murphy J., Allen P.G., Stevens T.H., Wheatherhead D. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, 30(3):313-325.
63. Norwood F.B., Lusk J.L. A calibrated auction-conjoint valuation method: valuing pork and eggs produced under differing animal welfare conditions. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2011, 62:80-94.
64. Norwood B., Lusk J.L., Boyer T. Forecasting hypothetical bias: a tale of two calibrations. Experimental Methods, Environmental Economics 2008, T.L. Cherry, S. Kroll, J.F. Shogren (Eds.).
65. Reiling S.D., Boyle K.J., Phillips M.L., Anderson M.W. Temporal reliability of contingent values. Land Economics 1990, 66(2):129-134.
66. Riis J., Loewenstein G., Baron J., Jepson C., Fagerlin A., Ubel P.A. Ignorance of hedonic adaptation to hemodialysis: a study using ecological momentary assessment. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General 2005, 131(1):3-9.
67. Schläpfer F. Contingent valuation: a new perspective. Ecological Economics 2008, 64:729-740.
68. Shogren J.F., Fox J.A., Hayes D.J., Roosen J. Observed for food safety in retail, survey, and auction markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1999, 81:1192-1199.
69. Stevens T.H., More T.A., Glass J. Intertemporal and temporal stability of cv bids for wildlife existence: a panel study. Land Economics 1994, 70:355-363.
70. Swait J., Louviere J. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. Journal of Marketing Research 1993, 30:305-314.
71. Teisl M.F., McCollum D.W., Boyle K.J., Reiling S.D. Test-retest reliability with independent sample pretest and post-test control groups. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1995, 77:613-619.
72. Train K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2003, Cambridge University Press.
73. Urban G.L., Hauser J.R., Qualls W.J., Weinberg B.D., Bohlmann J.D., Chicos R.A. Information acceleration: validation and lessons from the field. Journal of Marketing Research 1997, 34(1):143-153.
74. Whitehead J.C., Hoban T.J. Testing for temporal reliability in contingent valuation with time for changes in factors affecting demand. Land Economics 1999, 75(3):453-465.
75. Zhao J., Kling C.L. Willingness to pay, compensating variation, and the cost of commitment. Economic Inquiry 2004, 42:503-517.