Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 68, Issue 3, pp 777–796 | Cite as

Mitigating Hypothetical Bias: Evidence on the Effects of Correctives from a Large Field Study

  • Mark A. Andor
  • Manuel FrondelEmail author
  • Colin Vance


The overestimation of willingness-to-pay (WTP) in hypothetical responses is a well-known finding in the literature. Various techniques have been proposed to remove or, at least, reduce this bias. Using about 30,000 responses on WTP for a variety of power mixes from a panel of 6500 German households and the fixed-effects estimator to control for unobserved heterogeneity, this article simultaneously explores the effects of two common ex-ante approaches—cheap talk and consequential script—and the ex-post certainty approach to calibrating hypothetical WTP responses. Based on a switching regression model that accounts for the potential endogeneity of respondent certainty, we find evidence for a lower WTP among those respondents who classify themselves as definitely certain about their answers. Although neither cheap talk nor the consequential-script corrective reduce WTP estimates, receiving either of these scripts increases the probability that respondents indicate definite certainty about their WTP bids.


Willingness-to-pay Cheap talk Certainty approach 

JEL Classification

D12 Q21 Q41 



We are grateful for invaluable comments and suggestions by Peter Grösche, Christoph M. Schmidt and participants of the World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists, Istanbul, Turkey (2014), as well as two anonymous reviewers. This work has been partly supported by the Collaborative Research Center “Statistical Modeling of Nonlinear Dynamic Processes” (SFB 823) of the German Research Foundation (DFG), within the framework of Project A3, “Dynamic Technology Modeling”. We also gratefully acknowledge financial support by the German Federal Ministery of Education and Research (BMBF) under Grant 01LA1113A.


  1. Andor MA, Frondel M, Vance C (2014) Hypothetische Zahlungsbereitschaft für grünen Strom: Bekundete Präferenzen privater Haushalte für das Jahr 2013. Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik 15(4):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bateman IJ, Langford IH (1997) Budget constraint, temporal and ordering effects in contingent valuation studies. Environ Plan A 29:1215–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateman IJ, Burgess D, Matthews DI (2008) Contrasting NOAA guidelines with learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): preference learning versus coherent arbitrariness. J Environ Econ Manage 55:127–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bishop RC, Heberlein TA (1979) Measuring values of extramarket goods: Are indirect measures biased? Am J Agric Econ 61(5):926–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blumenschein K, Blomquist GC, Johannesson M, Horn N, Freeman PR (2008) Eliciting willingness to pay in the without bias: evidence from a field experiment. Econ J 118(525):114–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blumenschein K, Johannesson M, Blomquist GC, Liljas B, O’Connor RM (1998) Experimental results on expressed certainty an hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. South Econ J 65(1):169–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bulte E, Gerking S, List LA, de Zeeuw A (2005) The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated WTP values: evidence from a field study. J Environ Econ Manage 49(2):330–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carlsson F, Frykblom P, Lagerkvist CJ (2005) Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments. Econ Lett 89(2):147–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlsson F, Mørkbak MR, Olsen SB (2012) The first time is the hardest: a test of ordering effects in choice experiments. J Choice Model 5(2):19–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark J, Friesen L (2008) The causes of order effects in contingent valuation surveys: an experimental investigation. J Environ Econ Manage 56(2):195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cummings RG, Elliot S, Harrison GW, Murphy J (1997) Are hypothetical referenda incentive-compatible? J Polit Econ 105(3):609–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cummings RG, Harrison GW, Rutström EE (1995) Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: Is the dichotomous choice approach incentive-compatible? Am Econ Rev 85(1):260–266Google Scholar
  13. Cummings RG, Taylor LO (1999) Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am Econ Rev 89(3):649–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frew EJ, Whynes DK, Wolstenholme JL (2003) Eliciting willingness to pay: comparing closed-ended with open-ended and payment scale formats. Med Decis Mak 23(2):150–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frondel M, Vance C (2013) Heterogeneity in the effect of home energy audits: theory and evidence. Environ Res Econ 55(3):407–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frondel M, Vance C (2010) Fixed, random, or something in between? A variant of Hausman’s specification test for panel data estimators. Econ Lett 107:327–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grösche P, Schröder C (2011) Eliciting public support for greening the electricity mix using random parameter techniques. Energy Econ 33(2):363–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Halstead J, Luloff A, Stevens TH (1992) Protest bidders in contingent valuation. Northeast J Agric Res Econ 21(2):160–169Google Scholar
  19. Harrison GW (2006) Experimental evidence on alternative environmental valuation methods. Environ Res Econ 34(1):125–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harrison GW, Harstad R, Rutström EE (2004) Experimental methods and elicitation of values. Exp Econ 7(2):123–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harrison GW, Rutström EE (2008) Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods. In: Plott C, Smith VL (eds) Handbook of experimental economics results, vol 1, 1st edn. Elsevier Science, New York, pp 752–767Google Scholar
  22. Johannesson M, Liljas B, Johansson P-O (1998) An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions and real purchase decisions. Appl Econ 30(5):643–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lancaster KJ (1966) A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ 74:132–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Landry CE, List JA (2007) Using ex-ante approaches to obtain credible signals for value in contingent markets: evidence from the field. Am J Agric Econ 89(2):420–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. List JA (2001) Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? evidence from field auctions for sportscards. Am Econ Rev 91(5):1498–1507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. List JA, Gallet CA (2001) What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environ Res Econ 20(3):241–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lusk JL (2003) Effects of cheap talk on consumer willingness-to-pay for golden rice. Am J Agric Econ 85(4):840–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maddala GS (1983) Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics, reprint 1999. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Menges R, Schröder C, Traub S (2005) Altruism, warm glow and the willingness-to-donate for green electricity: an artefactual field experiment. Environ Res Econ 31(4):431–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Murphy JJ, Stevens T, Weatherhead D (2005) Is cheap talk effective at eliminating hypothetical bias in a provision point mechanism? Environ Res Econ 30(3):327–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Watson V, Ryan M (2007) Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation. J Health Econ 26(3):463–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Whitehead JC, Cherry TL (2007) Willingness to pay for a green energy program: a comparison of ex-ante and ex-post hypothetical bias mitigation approaches. Res Energy Econ 29(4):247–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RWI - Leibniz Institut für WirtschaftsforschungEssenGermany
  2. 2.Ruhr University BochumBochumGermany
  3. 3.Jacobs University BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations