Advertisement

Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 65, Issue 4, pp 789–811 | Cite as

Hypothetical Bias in Risk Preferences as a Driver of Hypothetical Bias in Willingness to Pay: Experimental Evidence

  • Jinkwon Lee
  • Uk Hwang
Article
  • 393 Downloads

Abstract

This study provides new insight on the established issue of elicitation bias in hypothetical choice settings. In particular, using an experiment that elicits real and hypothetical willingness to pay for the protection of otters, we provide evidence that the observed bias is driven by those who are both uncertain about their value and exhibit hypothetical bias in risk attitudes. This finding provides a reason why calibration approaches based on follow-up certainty questions have proven useful, but also suggests a degree of caution in applying the approach. Our results favour combining uncertainty calibration with CVM-X in which hypothetical bias in risk attitudes is also taken account to correct for hypothetical bias in WTP.

Keywords

Contingent valuation method Hypothetical bias Risk attitudes Laboratory experiment CVM-X 

Abbreviations

CVM

Contingent valuation method

HBi

Hypothetical bias in Task i (i = 1,2)

OC

Open-end CVM

WTP

Willingness to pay

HTi

Hypothetical treatment for Task i (i = 1,2)

RTi

Real treatment for Task i (i = 1,2)

NHBGi

Subjects with no hypothetical bias in Task i (i = 1,2)

HBGi

Subjects with hypothetical bias in Task i (i = 1,2)

JEL Classification

Q51 D81 C91 

Supplementary material

10640_2015_9926_MOESM1_ESM.docx (222 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (docx 221 KB)

References

  1. Binswanger HP (1980) Attitudes toward risk: experimental measurement in rural India. Am J Agri Econ 62(3):395–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blomquist GC, Blumenschein K, Johannesson M (2009) Eliciting willingness to pay without bias using follow-up certainty statements: comparison between probably/definitely and a 10-point certainty scale. Environ Resour Econ 43:473–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blumenschein K, Blomquist GC, Johannesson M, Horn N, Freeman P (2008) Eliciting willingness to pay without bias: evidence from a field experiment. Econ J 118:114–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bohm P (1972) Estimating demand for public goods: an experiment. Eur Econ Rev 3(2):111–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown TC, Ajzen I, Hrubes D (2003) Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 46(2):353–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlsson F, Martinsson P (2001) Do hypothetical and actual willingness to pay differ in choice experiments? Application to the valuation of the environment. J Environ Econ Manag 41:179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carson RT, Groves T (2011) Incentive and information properties of preference questions: commentary and extensions. In: Bennett J (ed) International handbook of non-market environmental valuation. Edward Elgar, Northampton, pp 300–321Google Scholar
  8. Carson RT, Groves T (2007) Incentive and information properties of preference questions. Environ Resour Econ 37:181–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Camerer CF, Hogarth RM (1999) The effect of financial incentives in experiments: a review and capital-labor production framework. J Risk Uncertain 19:7–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Champ PA, Bishop RC (2001) Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: an empirical study of hypothetical bias. Environ Resour Econ 19(4):383–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Champ PA, Flores NE, Brown TC, Chivers J (1997) Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. J Environ Econ Manag 33(2):151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Champ PA, Moore R, Bishop RC (2009) A comparison of approaches to mitigate hypothetical bias. Agri Resour Econ Rev 38(2):166–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cubitt RP, Starmer C, Sugden R (1998) On the validity of the random lottery incentive system. Exp Econ 1:115–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Cummings RG, Elliott S, Harrison GW, Murphy J (1997) Are hypothetical referenda incentive compatible? J Polit Econ 105:609–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cummings RG, Harrison GW, Rutstrom E (1995) Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: Is the dichotomous choice approach incentive compatible? Am Econ Rev 85(1):260–266Google Scholar
  17. Ethier RG, Poe GL, Schulze WD, Clark J (2000) A comparison of hypothetical phone and mail contingent valuation response for green-pricing electricity programs. Land Econ 76(1):54–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fox JA, Shogren JF, Hayes DJ, Kliebenstein JB (1998) CVM-X: calibrating contingent values with experimental auction markets. Am J Agric Econ 80(3):455–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grebitus C, Lusk JL, Nayga RM Jr (2013) Explaining differences in real and hypothetical experimental auctions and choice experiments with personality. J Econ Psychol 36:11–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harrison GW, Johnson E, McInnes MM, Rutstrom EE (2005) Risk aversion and incentive effects: comment. Am Econ Rev 95(3):897–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Herriges J, Kling CL, Liu CC, Tobias J (2010) What are the consequences of consequentiality? J Environ Econ Manag 59(1):67–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hey J, Lee J (2005) Do subjects separate (or are they sophisticated)? Exp Econ 8(3):233–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holt CA, Laury SK (2002) Risk aversion and incentive effects. Am Econ Rev 92(5):1644–1655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huber PJ (1964) Robust estimation of location parameters. Ann Math Stat 35:73–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Johansson-Stenman O, Svedsater H (2008) Measuring hypothetical bias in choice experiments: the importance of cognitive consistency. J Econ Anal Policy 8(1):1–8Google Scholar
  27. Kachelmeier SJ, Shehata M (1992) Examining risk preferences under high monetary incentives: experimental evidence from the People’s Republic of China. Am Econ Rev 82(5):1379–1391Google Scholar
  28. Küberger A, Schulte-Mecklenberg M, Perner J (2002) Framing decisions: hypothetical and real. Org Behav Human Dec Process 89(2):1162–1175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee J (2008) The effect of the background risk in a simple chance improving decision model. J Risk Uncertain 36(1):19–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Li C-Z, Mattsson L (1995) Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: an improved structural model for contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 28(2):256–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Li G (1985) Robust regression. In: Hoaglin DC, Mosteller F, Tukey JW (eds) Exploring data tables, trends, and shapes. Wiley, New York, pp 41–69Google Scholar
  32. List JA, Gallet CA (2001) What experimental protocol influences disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Environ Resour Econ 20(3):241–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. List JA, Shogren J (2002) Calibration of willingness-to-accept. J Environ Econ Manag 43:219–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. List JA, Shogren J (1998) Calibration of the difference between actual and hypothetical valuations in a field experiment. J Econ Behav Organ 37(2):193–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Little J, Berrens R (2004) Explaining disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values: further investigation using meta-analysis. Econ Bull 3(6):1–13Google Scholar
  36. Loomis J (2011) What’s to know about hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation studies?”. J Econ Surv 25(2):363–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Murphy JJ, Allen PG, Stevens TH, Weatherhead D (2005) A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environ Resour Econ 30(3):313–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Murphy JJ, Stevens TH, Weatherhead D (2005) Is cheap talk effective at eliminating hypothetical bias in a provision point mechanism? Environ Resour Econ 30(3):327–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Norwood FB, Lust JL, Boyer T (2008) Forecasting hypothetical bias: a tale of two calibrations. In: Cherry TI, Kroll S, Shogren JF (eds) Environmental economics, experimental methods. Routledge, New York, pp 447–465Google Scholar
  40. Poe GL, Clark JE, Rondeau D, Schulze WD (2002) Provision point mechanisms and field validity tests of contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 23:105–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Randles RH (2001) On neutral responses (zeroes) in the sign test and ties in the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney Test. Am Stat 55(2):96–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rondeau D, Schulze W, Poe B (1999) Voluntary revelation of the demand for public goods using a provision point mechanism. J Public Econ 72(3):455–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rose SK, Clark J, Poe GL, Rondeau D, Schulze WD (2002) The private provision of public goods: tests of a provision point mechanism for funding green power programs. Resour Energy Econ 24:131–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sinden JA (1988) Empirical tests of hypothetical bias in consumers’ surplus surveys. Aust J Agri Econ 32:98–112Google Scholar
  45. Starmer C, Sugden R (1991) Does the random lottery incentive system elicit true preferences? An experimental investigation. Am Econ Rev 81(4):971–978Google Scholar
  46. Vossler CA, Watson SB (2013) Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: testing the validity of stated preferences in the field. J Econ Behav Organ 86:137–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vossler CA, Doyon M, Rondeau D (2012) Truth in consequentiality: theory and field evidence on discrete choice experiments. Am Econ J Microecon 4(4):145–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EconomicsSogang UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.School of Economics and TradeKyungpook National UniversityDaeguSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations