Skip to main content
Log in

Resolving questions about bias in real and hypothetical referenda

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite 10 years of research on behavior in hypothetical referenda, conflict remains in the literature on whether or not the mechanism generates biased responses compared to real referenda, and the nature and source of any such bias. Almost all previous inquiry in respect of this issue has concentrated on bias at the aggregate level. This paper reports a series of three experiments which focuses on bias at the individual level and how this can translate to bias at the aggregate level. The authors argue that only an individual approach to hypothetical bias is consistent with the concept of incentive compatibility. The results of these experiments reflect these previous conflicting findings but go on to show that individual hypothetical bias is a robust result driven by the differing influence of pure self-interest and other- regarding preferences in real and hypothetical situations, rather than by a single behavioral theory such as free riding. In a hypothetical situation these preferences cause yea-saying and non-demand revealing voting. This suggests that investigation of individual respondents in other hypothetical one-shot binary choices may also provide us with insights into aggregate behavior in these situations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Arrow KJ, Solow R, Portney P, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H (1993). Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Regist 58: 4602–4614

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bjornstad D, Cummings R, Osborne L (1997). A learning design for reducing hypothetical bias in the contingent valuation method. Environ Resour Econ 10: 207–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brown TC, Ajzen I, Hrubes D (2003). Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 46: 353–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cummings RG, Elliott S, Harrison GW, Murphy J (1997). Are hypothetical referenda incentive compatible?. J Polit Econ 105: 609–621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cummings RG, Taylor LO (1999). Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am Econ Rev 89: 649–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fleiss JL (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fleiss JL, Cuzick J (1979). The reliability of dichotomous judgments: unequal numbers of judges per subject. Appl Psychol Meas 3: 537–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Landis JR, Koch G (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. List JA, Gallet CA (2001). What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values?. Environ Resour Econ 20: 241–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Little J, Berrens R (2004). Explaining disparities between actually and hypothetical stated values: further investigation using meta-analysis. Econ Bull 3: 1–13

    Google Scholar 

  11. Murphy JJ, Allen PG, Stevens TH, Weatherhead D (2005). A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environ Resour Econ 30: 313–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Smith VK (1999). Of birds and books: more on hypothetical referenda. J Polit Econ 107: 197–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Taylor LO, McKee M, Laury SK, Cummings RG (2001). Induced value tests of the referendum voting mechanism. Econ Lett 71: 61–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Vossler CA, Kerkvliet J (2003). A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum. J Environ Econ Manage 45: 631–649

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to W. George Hutchinson.

Additional information

Alphabetical list of authors no seniority of authorship attributed.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Burton, A.C., Carson, K.S., Chilton, S.M. et al. Resolving questions about bias in real and hypothetical referenda. Environ Resource Econ 38, 513–525 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9095-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9095-6

Keywords

JEL Classifications

Navigation