The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth-A multiple country test of an oath script

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Volumn 89, Issue , 2013, Pages 105-121

  Carlsson, Fredrik ^a   Kataria, Mitesh ^b   Krupnick, Alan ^c   Lampi, Elina ^a   Löfgren, åsa ^a   Qin, Ping ^d   Sterner, Thomas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR THE SCIENCE OF HUMAN HISTORY   (Germany)

^c RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE   (United States)

^d RENMIN UNIVERSITY OF CHINA   (China)

Author keywords

Hypothetical bias; Oath script; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

EID: 84875852893     PISSN: 01672681     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2013.02.003     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Aadland D., Caplan A. Willingness to pay for curbside recycling with detection and mitigation of hypothetical bias. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2003, 85:492-502.
2. Aadland D., Caplan A. Cheap talk revisited: new evidence from CVM. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 2006, 60:562-578.
3. Alpizar F., Carlsson F., Johansson-Stenman O. Does context matter more for hypothetical than for actual contributions? Evidence from a natural field experiment. Experimental Economics 2008, 11:299-314.
4. Andreoni J. Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm glow giving. The Economic Journal 1990, 100:464-477.
5. Bateman I., Burgess D., Hutchinson G., Matthews D. Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2008, 55:127-141.
6. Braver S. Social Contracts and the Provision of Public Goods, in Social Dilemmas: Perspectives on Individuals and Groups 1995, 69-86. Praeger, New York. D. Schroeder (Ed.).
7. Carlsson F., Frykblom P., Lagerkvist C.J. Using cheap-talk as a test of validity in choice experiments. Economics Letters 2005, 89:147-152.
8. Carlsson F., Kataria M., Krupnick A., Lampi E., Löfgren Å., Qin P., Chung S., Sterner T. Paying for mitigation: a multiple country study. Land Economics 2012, 88:326-340.
9. Carson R.T. Contingent valuation: a practical alternative when prices aren't available. Journal of Economic Perspectives 2012, 26:27-42.
10. Carson R., Groves T. Incentive and information properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics 2007, 37:181-210.
11. Cameron T. OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1989, 17:230-246.
12. Champ P., Bishop R. Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: an empirical study of hypothetical bias. Environmental and Resource Economics 2001, 19:383-402.
13. Champ P., Bishop R., Brown T., McCollum D. Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1997, 33:151-162.
14. Chapman K.J., Lupton R.A. Academic dishonesty in a global educational market: a comparison of Hong Kong and American university business students. International Journal of Educational Management 2004, 18(7):425-435.
15. Cook J., Whittington D., Canh D., Johnson F.R., Nyamete A. Reliability of stated preferences for cholera and typhoid vaccines with time to think in Hue Vietnam. Economic Inquiry 2007, 45:100-114.
16. Cummings R., Elliot S., Harrison G., Murphy J. Are hypothetical referenda incentive compatible. Journal of Political Economy 1997, 105:609-621.
17. Cummings R., Harrison G., Rutstrom E. Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: is the dichotomous choice approach incentive compatible?. American Economic Review 1995, 85:260-266.
18. Cummings R., Taylor O. Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. American Economic Review 1999, 89:649-665.
19. Day B., Bateman I., Carson R., Scarpa R., Louviere J., Wang P., Dupont D. Task independence in stated preference studies: a test of order effect explanations. Paper Presented at the WCERE Conference 2010 2010.
20. Day B., Pinto J. Ordering anomalies in choice experiments. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2010, 59:271-285.
21. Ehmke M., Lusk J., List J. Is hypothetical bias a universal phenomenon? A multinational investigation. Land Economics 2008, 84:489-500.
22. Ellingsen T., Johannesson M. Promises, threats and fairness. The Economic Journal 2004, 114:397-420.
23. Frykblom P. Hypothetical question modes and real willingness to pay. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1997, 34:275-287.
24. Fu G., Xu F., Cameron C.A., Heyman G., Lee K. Cross-cultural differences in children's choices, categorizations, and evaluations of truths and lies. Developmental Psychology 2007, 43(2):278-293.
25. Fu G., Lee K., Cameron C.A., Xu F. Chinese and Canadian adults' categorization and evaluation of lie- and truth-telling about prosocial and antisocial behaviors. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 2001, 32(6):720-727.
26. Greene W. Econometric Analysis 2003, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
27. Harvey A. Estimating regression models with multiplicative heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 1976, 44:461-465.
28. Hofstede G. Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations 2001, Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, California. 2nd ed.
29. Holmberg, S., Weibull, L., 2009. 46, Svensk höst [Swedish autumn]. SOM report no. 46. SOM Institute, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden (in Swedish).
30. House R.J., Hanges P.J., Javidan M., Dorfman P.W., Gupta V. Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies 2004, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
31. Jacquemet N., Joule R.V., Luchini S., Shogren J. Preference elicitation under oath. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2013, 65:110-132.
32. Jacquemet, N., Jameas, A., Luchini, S., Shogren, J., 2010. Referenda under oath. Unpublished working paper. GREQAM-CNRS, Universités d'Aix-Marseille II et III.
33. Johannesson M., Blomquist G.C., Blumenschein K., Johansson P.-O., Liljas B., O'Conor R.M. Calibrating hypothetical willingness to pay responses. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1999, 8:21-32.
34. Joule R., Beauvois J. La soumission librement consentie 1998, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.
35. Kahnemann D., Knetsch J. Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1992, 22:57-70.
36. Kiesler C. The Psychology of Commitment. Experiments Linking Behavior to Belief 1971, Academic Press, New York.
37. Krupnick, A., Hoffmann, S., Qin, P., 2010. The willingness to pay for mortality risk reductions in China. RFF Working Paper. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
38. List J. Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auction experiments. American Economic Review 2001, 91:1498-1507.
39. List J., Berrens R., Bohara A., Kerkvilet J. Examining the role of social isolation on stated preferences. American Economic Review 2004, 94:741-752.
40. List J., Gallet C. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values?. Environmental and Resource Economics 2001, 20:241-254.
41. Lupton R.A., Chapman K.J., Weiss J.E. International perspective: a cross-national exploration of business students' attitudes, perceptions, and tendencies toward academic dishonesty. Journal of Education for Business 2000, 75(4):231-235.
42. Lusk J.L., Norwood F.B. An inferred valuation method. Land Economics 2009, 85:500-514.
43. Mazar N., Amir O., Ariely D. The dishonesty of honesty people: a theory of self-concept maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research 2008, 45:633-644.
44. Murphy J., Allen B., Stevens T., Weatherhead D. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, 30:313-325.
45. Oscarsson H., Holmberg S. Regeringsskifte: Väljarna och valet 2006 2008, Norstedts Juridik, Stockholm, Sweden, (in Swedish).
46. Ostrom E., Walker J., Gardner R. Covenants with and without the sword: self-governance is possible. American Political Science Review 1992, 86:404-417.
47. Rawwas M., Swaidan Z., Isakson H. A comparative study of ethical beliefs of Master of Business Administration students in the United States with those in Hong Kong. Journal of Education for Business 2007, 82:146-158.
48. Shu L., Gino F., Bazerman M. Dishonest deed, clear conscience: when cheating leads to moral disengagement and motivated forgetting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2011, 37:330-349.
49. Shu, L., Mazar, N., Gino, F., Ariely, D., Bazerman M., 2011b. When to sign on the dotted line? Signing first makes ethics salient and decreases dishonest self-reports. Working Paper 11-117. Harvard Business School.
50. Vanberg C. Why do people keep their promises? An experimental test of two explanations. Econometrica 2008, 76:1467-1480.
51. Whittington D., Smith V.K., Okorafor A., Okore A., Liu J.L., McPhail A. Giving respondents time to think in contingent valuation studies: a developing country application. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1992, 22:205-225.
52. Wiser R. Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: a comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles. Ecological Economics 2007, 62:419-432.
53. World Values Survey World Values Survey 2005-2008 2010, ICPSR, Ann Arbor, MI.
54. Zizzo D. Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments. Experimental Economics 2010, 13:75-98.