Hypothetical bias in Stated Choice Experiments: Is it a problem? And if so, how do we deal with it?

Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice

Volumn 61, Issue , 2014, Pages 164-177

  Fifer, Simon ^a   Rose, John ^a   Greaves, Stephen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Certainty scales; Cheap talk; GPS; Hypothetical bias; Stated choice; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

AGGREGATES; AUTOMOBILE DRIVERS; GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM;

CERTAINTY SCALES; CHEAP TALK; HYPOTHETICAL BIAS; STATED CHOICE; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

SURVEYS;

GPS; NUMERICAL MODEL; TRAVEL BEHAVIOR; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

AUSTRALIA; NEW SOUTH WALES; SYDNEY [NEW SOUTH WALES];

EID: 84894367906     PISSN: 09658564     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2013.12.010     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Aadland D., Caplan A.J. Willingness to pay for curbside recycling with detection and mitigation of hypothetical bias. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2003, 85:492-502.
2. Alfnes F., Guttormsen A., Steine G., Kolstad K. Consumers' willingness to pay for the color of Salmon: a choice experiment with real economic incentives. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2006, 88:1050-1061.
3. Ben-Akiva M., Morikawa T. Estimation of switching models from revealed preferences and stated intentions. Transport. Res. Part A: Gen. 1990, 24:485-495.
4. Blumenschein K., Blomquist G., Johannesson M., Horn N., Freeman P. Eliciting willingness to pay without bias: evidence from a field experiment. Econ. J. 2008, 118:114-137.
5. Bradley M.A., Daly A.J. Estimation of Logit Choice Models using Mixed Stated Preference and Revealed Preference Information 1997, Elsevier, Oxford.
6. Brownstone D., Small K.A. Valuing time and reliability: assessing the evidence from road pricing demonstrations. Transport. Res. Part A: Pol. Pract. 2005, 39:279-293.
7. Carlsson F., Frykblom P., Lagerkvist C.-J. Using cheap-talk as a test of validity in choice experiments. Econ. Lett. 2005, 89:147-152.
8. Carson R., Groves T. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2007, 37:181-210.
9. Champ P.A., Bishop R.C., Brown T.C., McCollum D.W. Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 1997, 33:151-162.
10. Champ P., Moore R., Bishop R. A comparison of approaches to mitigate hypothetical bias. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 2009, 38:166.
11. Cummings R., Taylor L. Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am. Econ. Rev. 1999, 89:649-665.
12. Dussán, D.C., Ullrich, H., 2010. Consumer Welfare and Unobserved Heterogeneity in Discrete Choice Models: The Value of Alpine Road Tunnels. ZEW - Centre for European Economic Research Discussion Paper No. 10-095.
13. Fiebig D.G., Keane M.P., Louviere J., Wasi N. The generalized multinomial logit model: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Market. Sci. 2010, 29:393-421.
14. Fifer, S., 2011. Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Experiments: Is it a Problem? And if So, How Do We Deal With It? The University of Sydney.
15. Fifer S., Greaves S.P., Rose J.M., Elisson R. A combined GPS/stated choice experiment to estimate values of crash-risk reduction. J. Choice Model. 2011, 4:44-61.
16. Greaves S.P., Fifer S. Development of a kilometre-based charging regime to encourage safer driving practices. Transport. Res. Rec.: J. Transport. Res. Board 2182 2010, 88-96. (Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC).
17. Greaves S.P., Fifer S., Ellison R., Germanos G. Development of a global positioning system web-based prompted recall solution for longitudinal travel surveys. Transport. Res. Rec.: J. Transport. Res. Board 2183 2010, 69-77. (Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC).
18. Greaves, S.P., Fifer, S., Ellison, R., Familar, R., 2010b. Development and implementation of a GPS/internet-based design for longitudinal before-and-after travel behaviour studies. In: 12th World Conference on Transport Research WCTR, Lisbon, Portugal.
19. Greene W., Hensher D. Does scale heterogeneity across individuals matter? An empirical assessment of alternative logit models. Transportation 2010, 37:413-428.
20. Harrison G. Making choice studies incentive compatible. Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Stated Choice Studies 2007, 67-110. Springer, The Netherlands. B. Kanninen (Ed.).
21. Harrison G.W., Rutström E.E. Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods. Handbook of Experimental Economics Results 2008, 752-767. Elsevier, (Chapter 81). R.P. Charles, L.S. Vernon (Eds.).
22. Hensher D.A. Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay. Transport. Res. Part B: Methodol. 2010, 44:735-752.
23. Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., Bliemer, M., 2010. Course Notes. Discrete Choice Analysis Course, Sydney, Australia.
24. Herriges J., Kling C., Liu C.-C., Tobias J. What are the consequences of consequentiality?. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 2010, 59:67-81.
25. Hess, S., Rose, J.M., 2010. Random scale heterogeneity in discrete choice models. In: 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board TRB 2010, Washington, DC, United States.
26. Hess S., Rose J.M. Can scale and coefficient heterogeneity be separated in random coefficients models?. Transportation 2012, 39:1225-1239.
27. Isacsson, G., 2007. The Trade off between Time and Money: Is there a Difference Between Real and Hypothetical Choices? Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute.
28. Johannesson M. Calibrating hypothetical willingness to pay responses. J. Risk Uncertain. 1999, 18:21-32.
29. Ladenburg, J., Olsen, S.B., 2010. Augmenting Short Cheap Talk Scripts with a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys. University of Copenhagen, Institute of Food and Resource Economics FOI Working Paper 2010/9.
30. Li C.-Z., Mattsson L. Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: an improved structural model for contingent valuation. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 1995, 28:256-269.
31. List J. Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auctions for sportscards. Am. Econ. Rev. 2001, 91:1498-1507.
32. List J., Gallet C. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values?. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2001, 20:241-254.
33. Little J., Berrens R. Explaining disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values: further investigation using meta-analysis. Econ. Bull. 2004, 3:1-13.
34. Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., Swait, J.D., 2000. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications/Jordan J. Louviere, David A. Hensher, Joffre Swait, with a Contribution by Wiktor Adamowicz. Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, US.
35. Lusk J., Schroeder T. Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2004, 86:467-482.
36. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. Frontiers of Econometrics 1974, 105-142. Academic Press, New York. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
37. Moore R., Bishop R.C., Provencher B., Champ P.A. Accounting for respondent uncertainty to improve willingness-to-pay estimates. Can. J. Agric. Econ./Rev. can. d'agroecon. 2010, 58:381-401.
38. Morrison M., Brown T. Testing the effectiveness of certainty scales, cheap talk, and dissonance-minimization in reducing hypothetical bias in contingent valuation studies. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2009, 44:307-326.
39. Murphy J., Allen P., Stevens T., Weatherhead D. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2005, 30:313-325.
40. Nielsen O.A. Behavioral responses to road pricing schemes: description of the Danish AKTA experiment. J. Intell. Transport. Syst.: Technol. Plan. Oper. 2004, 8:233-251.
41. Norwood F.B. Can calibration reconcile stated and observed preferences?. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2005, 37:111.
42. Ready R.C., Champ P.A., Lawton J.L. Using respondent uncertainty to mitigate hypothetical bias in a stated choice experiment. Land Econ. 2010, 86:363-381.
43. Rose J.M., Bliemer M.C.J. Constructing efficient stated choice experimental designs. Transp. Rev. 2009, 29:587-617.
44. Rose J.M., Bliemer M.C.J., Hensher D.A., Collines A.T. Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives. Transp. Res. Part B 2008, 42:395-406.
45. Sugden R. Anomalies and stated preference techniques: a framework for a discussion of coping strategies. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2005, 32:1-12.
46. Train K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2009, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. second ed.
47. Vossler C.A., Evans M.F. Bridging the gap between the field and the lab: environmental goods, policy maker input, and consequentiality. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 2009, 58:338-345.