Explaining Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values: Further Investigation Using Meta-Analysis

Joseph Little · Robert P. Berrens

228 citations0/0 files storedRePEc: Research Papers in Economics

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Economic and Environmental Valuation Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies

Abstract

Spurred by the need to account for non-market values in various policy applications, a lively and extended debate has surrounded the presence and magnitude of hypothetical bias in stated value studies (e.g., applications of the survey-based contingent valuation method). Using the rapidly accumulating set of comparison studies, List and Gallet (2001) conducted an initial meta-analysis of the experimental protocol that may be influencing the disparity between real and hypothetical values in stated value studies. We expand the original meta-analysis by using a significantly larger (29%) data set, including variables to account for referendum formats, certainty corrections, and cheap talk scripts.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 228 citations exist upstream.

References

1999Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method 2001What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?2001Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?1995Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?2001Donation Payment Mechanisms and Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias 1997Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible?2002Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation

Cited by

2011Cheap Talk Scripts and Online Choice Experiments: “Looking Beyond the Mean”2009Willingness to pay for safe drinking water: Evidence from Parral, Mexico 2009Testing the Effectiveness of Certainty Scales, Cheap Talk, and Dissonance-Minimization in Reducing Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies 2021Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods 20142013WAEA Keynote Address: Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.