Abstract
Primarily because of the hypothetical character of interview situations, respondents are often unable to state their true willingness to pay (WTP). This inability results in the so-called hypothetical bias. To address this bias, incentive-compatible methods have been proposed, but such methods are applicable only to real products. We propose a new method for measuring WTP based on disposable cash and specificpurpose vouchers that are earmarked for particular goods that, contrary to incentive-compatible methods, can be used for hypothetical products and services that are less affected by the hypothetical bias. Empirical studies show that the new procedure provides WTP results that are equal to the results of alternative incentive-compatible elicitation procedures, such as the Vickrey auction and the Becker-DeGroot-Marschak (BDM) procedure.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Ajzen, Icek, Thomas C. Brown, and Franklin Carvajal (2004): Explaining the Discrepancy between Intentions and Actions: The Case of Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30 (9): 1108–1121.
Allenby, Greg M., Neeraj Arora, and James L. Ginter (1995): Incorporating Prior Knowledge into the Analysis of Conjoint Studies, Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (2): 152–162.
Barrot, Christian, Sönke Albers, Bernd Skiera, and Björn Schäfers (2010): Vickrey vs. eBay: Why Second-Price Sealed-Bid Auctions Lead to More Realistic Price-Demand Functions, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 14 (4): 7–38.
Bateson, John E. G. and Michael K. Hui (1992): The Ecological Validity of Photographic Slides and Videotapes in Simulating the Service Setting, Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (2): 271–281.
Becker, Gordon M., Morris H. DeGroot, and Jacob Marschak (1964): Measuring Utility by a Single-Response Sequential Method, Systems Resarch and Behavioral Science, 9 (3): 226–32.
Blatter, David, Klaus Miller, Reto Hofstetter, and Harley Krohmer, H. (2009): Improving the Direct Estimation of Demand by Adjusting for Incorrect Price-Statements, Proceedings of the 38th EMAC Conference, 26–29 May 2009, Nantes, France.
Bornstein, Brian H. (1999): The Ecological Validity of Jury Simulations: Is the Jury Still out?, Law and Human Behavior, 23 (1): 75–91.
Brunswik, Egon and Joe Kamiya (1953): Ecological Cue-Validity of ‘Proximity’ and of Other Gestalt Factors, American Journal of Psychology, 66 (1): 20–32.
Campbell, Donald. T. and Julian Stanley (1963): Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research, Houghton Mifflin: Boston et al., MA.
Darmon, René Y. and Rouziès, Dominique (1994): Reliability and Internal Validity of Conjoint Estimated Utility Functions under Error-Free versus Error-Full Conditions, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11 (5): 465–476.
Dasgupta, Partha, Peter Hammond, and Eric Maskin (1979): The Implementation of Social Choice Rules: Some General Results on Incentive Compatibility, The Review of Economic Studies 46 (2): 185–216.
De Leeuw, Jan, Forrest W. Young, and Yoshio Takane (1976): Additive Structure in Qualitative Data: An Alternating Least Squares Method with Optimal Scaling Features, Psychometrika, 41 (4): 471–503.
Ding, Min (2007): An Incentive-Aligned Mechanism for Conjoint Analysis, Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (2): 214–223.
Ding, Min, Rajdeep Grewal, and John Liechty (2005): Incentive-Aligned Conjoint Analysis, Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (1): 67–82.
Dong, Songting, Min Ding, and Joel Huber (2010): A Simple Mechanism to Incentive-Align Conjoint Experiments, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27 (1): 25–32.
Dost, Florian and Robert Wilken (2012): Measuring Willingness to Pay as a Range, Revisited: When Should We Care?, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29 (2): 148–166.
Green, Paul E., Kristiaan Helsen, and Bruce Shandler (1988): Conjoint Internal Validity under Alternative Profile Presentations, Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (3): 392–397.
Green, Paul E. and Vithala R. Rao (1971): Conjoint Measurement for Quantifying Judgmental Data, Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (3): 355–363.
Green, Paul E. and V. Srinivasan (1978): Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook, Journal of Consumer Research, 5 (2): 103–123.
Green, Paul E. and V. Srinivasan (1990): Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice, Journal of Marketing, 54 (4): 3–19.
Hair, Joseph F. Jr., William C. Black, Barry J. Babin, and Rolph E. Anderson (2010): Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, 7th ed., Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hamlin, Robert P. (2005): The Rise and Fall of the Latin Square in Marketing: A Cautionary Tale, European Journal of Marketing, 39 (3/4): 328–350.
Hanemann, W. Michael (1991): Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?, The American Economic Review, 81 (3): 635–647.
Hanley, Nick, Susana Mourato, and Robert E. Wright (2001): Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?, Journal of Economic Surveys, 15 (3): 435–462.
Heckman, James (1990): Varieties of Selection Bias, American Economic Review, 80 (2): 313–318.
Herrmann, Andreas, Mark Heitmann, Robert Morgan, Stephan C. Henneberg, and Jan Landwehr (2009): Consumer Decision Making and Variety of Offerings: The Effect of Attribute Alignability, Psychology & Marketing, 26 (4): 333–358.
Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky (1984): Choices, Values and Frames, American Psychologist 39 (4): 341–350.
List, John A. and Craig A. Gallet (2001): What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values? Evidence from a Meta-Analysis, Environmental and Resource Economics, 20 (3): 241–254.
Little, Joseph and Robert Berrens, (2004): Explaining Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values: Further Investigation Using Meta-Analysis, Economics Bulletin, 3 (6): 1–13.
Milgrom, Paul R. and Robert J. Weber (1982): A Theory of Auctions and Competitive Bidding, Econometrica, 50 (5): 1089–1122.
Miller, Klaus M., Reto Hofstetter, Harley Krohmer, and Z. John Zhang (2011): How Should Consumers’ Willingness to Pay Be Measured? An Empirical Comparison of State-of-the-Art Approaches, Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (1): 172–184.
Moffitt, Robert (1989): Estimating the Value of an In-Kind Transfer: The Case of Food Stamps, Econometrica, 57 (2): 385–409.
Motowidlo, Stephan J., Marvin D. Dunette, and Garry W. Carter (1990): An Alternative Selection Procedure: The Low-Fidelity Simulation, Journal of Applied Psychology, 75 (6): 640–647.
Müller, Holger, Steffen Voigt, and Bernd Erichson (2009): Befragungsbasierte Methoden zur Ermittlung von Preisresponsefunktionen: Preisbereitschaft oder Kaufbereitschaft, Working Paper, RePEc.
Murphy, James J., P. Geoffrey Allen, Thomas H. Stevens, and Darryl Weatherhead (2005): A Meta-Analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation, Environmental and Resource Economics, 30 (3): 313–325.
Neisser, Ulric (1976): Cognition and Reality: Principles and Implications of Cognitive Psychology, Freeman: New York, NY.
Park, Young-Hoon, Min Ding, and Vithala R. Rao (2008): Eliciting Preference for Complex Products: A Web-Based Upgrading Method, Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (5): 562–574.
Raser, John R. (1969): Simulation and Society: An Exploration of Scientific Gaming, Allyn and Bacon: Boston, MA.
Rogers, Steven D., Endre E. Kadar, and Alan Costall (2005): Gaze Patterns in the Visual Control of Straight-Road Driving and Braking as a Function of Speed and Expertise, Ecological Psychology, 17 (1), 19–38.
Simon, Julian L. (1969): A Further Test of the Kinky Oligopoly Demand Curve, American Economic Review, 59 (5): 971–975.
Srinivasan, V., Arun K. Jain, and Naresh K. Malhotra (1983): Improving Predictive Power of Conjoint Analysis by Constrained Parameter Estimation, Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (4): 433–438.
Sweezy, Paul M. (1939): Demand under Conditions of Oligopoly, The Journal of Political Economy, 47 (4): 568–573.
Teichert, Thorsten and Edlira Shehu (2010): Investigating Research Streams of Conjoint Analysis: A Bibliometric Study, BuR — Business Research, 3 (1): 49–68.
Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman (1974): Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Science, 185: 1124–1131
Varian, Hal R. (1992): Microeconomic Analysis, 3rd ed., Norton: New York et al., NY.
Vickrey, William (1961): Counterspeculation, Auctions, and Competitive Sealed Tenders, Journal of Finance, 16 (1): 8–37.
Völckner, Franziska (2006): An Empirical Comparison of Methods for Measuring Consumers’ Willingness to Pay, Marketing Letters, 17 (2): 137–149.
Wang, Tuo, R. Venkatesh, and Rabikar Chatterjee (2007): Reservation Price as a Range: An Incentive-Compatible Measurement Approach, Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (2): 200–213.
Wansink, Brian, Robert J. Kent, and Stephen J. Hoch (1998): An Anchoring and Adjustment Model of Purchase Quantity Decisions, Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (1): 71–81.
Wertenbroch, Klaus and Bernd Skiera (2002): Measuring Consumers’ Willingness to Pay at the Point of Purchase, Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (2): 228–241.
Wittink, Dick R., Lakshman Krishnamurthi, and David J. Reibstein (1989): The Effect of Differences in the Number of Attribute Levels on Conjoint Results, Marketing Letters, 1 (2): 113–123.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Lieven, T., Lennerts, S. Measuring Willingness to Pay by Means of the Trade-off between Free Available Cash and Specific-Purpose Vouchers. Bus Res 6, 154–171 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03342747
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03342747