Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 21–32 | Cite as

Calibrating Hypothetical Willingness to Pay Responses

  • Magnus Johannesson
  • Glenn C. Blomquist
  • Karen Blumenschein
  • Per-olov Johansson
  • Bengt Liljas
  • Richard M. O'Conor


Experimental data comparing hypothetical and real dichotomous choice responses for two different goods were used to estimate a statistical bias function to calibrate the hypothetical yes responses. The probability that a hypothetical yes response would be a real yes response was estimated as a function of the individual's self-assessed certainty of the hypothetical yes response (assessed on a 0–10 scale) and a variable representing the price level. Without calibration the hypothetical yes responses significantly exceeded the proportion of real yes responses, but after calibration the null hypothesis of no difference between hypothetical and real responses could not be rejected in any of the experiments.

contingent valuation hypothetical bias willingness to pay experiments calibration 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Blackburn, McKinley, Glenn W. Harrison, and Elisabet E. Rutstrom. (1994). ''Statistical Bias Functions and Informative Hypothetical Surveys,'' American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76, 1084–1088.Google Scholar
  2. Blumenschein, Karen, Magnus Johannesson, Glenn C. Blomquist, Bengt Liljas, and Richard M. O'Conor. (1998). ''Experimental Results on Expressed Certainty and Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation,'' Southern Economic Journal 65, 169–177.Google Scholar
  3. Bishop, Richard C., and Thomas A. Heberlein. (1979). ''Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased.?,'' American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61, 926–930.Google Scholar
  4. Champ, Patricia A., Richard C. Bishop, Thomas C. Brown, and Daniel W. McCollum. (1997). ''Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods,'' Journal of En®ironmental Economics and Management 33, 151–162.Google Scholar
  5. Cummings, Ronald G., Steven Elliott, Glenn W. Harrison, and James Murphy. (1997). ''Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible?'' Journal of Political Economy 105, 609–621.Google Scholar
  6. Cummings, Ronald G., Glenn W. Harrison, and Elisabet E. Rutstrom. (1995). ''Homegrown Values and ¨ Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?,'' American Economic Rev iew 85, 260–266.Google Scholar
  7. Diamond, Peter A., and Jerry A. Hausman. (1994). ''Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?,'' Journal of Economic Perspectiv es 8, 45–64.Google Scholar
  8. Greene, William H. (1993). Econometric Analysis, 2nd Ed. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Hanemann, W. Michael. (1984). ''Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses,'' American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66, 332–341.Google Scholar
  10. Hanemann, W. Michael. (1994). ''Valuing the Environment Through Contingent Valuation,'' Journal of Economic Perspectiv es 8, 19–43.Google Scholar
  11. Johannesson, Magnus. (1996). Theory and Methods of Economic Ev aluation in Health Care. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Johannesson, Magnus, Bengt Liljas, and Per-Olov Johansson. (1998). ''An Experimental Comparison of Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions and Real Purchase Decisions,'' Applied Economics 30, 643–647.Google Scholar
  13. Kagel, John H., and Alvin E. Roth (eds.). (1995). The Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kristrom, Bengt. (1990). ''A Non-Parametric Approach to the Estimation of Welfare Measures in ¨ Discrete Response Valuation Studies,'' Land Economics 66, 135–139.Google Scholar
  15. Li, Chuan-Zhong, and Leif Mattson. (1995). ''Discrete Choice under Preference Uncertainty: An Improved Structural Model for Contingent Valuation,'' Journal of En®ironmental Economics and Management 28, 256–269.Google Scholar
  16. Mitchell, Robert C., and Richard T. Carson. (1989). Using Surv eys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  17. Nape, Steven, Peter Frykblom, Glenn W. Harrison, and James C. Lesley. (1995). Hypothetical Bias and Willingness to Accept. Economics Working Paper B–95–09, College of Business Administration, University of South Carolina.Google Scholar
  18. Newbold, Paul. (1991). Statistics for Business and Economics, Third edition. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Thaler, Richard. (1987). ''The Psychology of Choice and the Assumptions of Economics.'' in Alvin E. Roth (ed.), Laboratory Experimentation in Economics: Six Points of View. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Wallis, W. Allen, and Milton Friedman. (1942). ''The Empirical Derivation of Indifference Functions.''in O. Lange, F. McIntyre, and T. O. Yntema (eds.), Studies in Mathematical Economics and Econometrics in Memory of Henry Schultz. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Magnus Johannesson
    • 1
  • Glenn C. Blomquist
    • 2
  • Karen Blumenschein
    • 3
  • Per-olov Johansson
    • 4
  • Bengt Liljas
    • 5
  • Richard M. O'Conor
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsStockholm School of EconomicsStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Department of Economics and Martin School of Public Policy and AdministrationUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA
  3. 3.College of Pharmacy, University of KentuckyLexingtonUSA
  4. 4.Department of EconomicsStockholm School of EconomicsStockholmSweden
  5. 5.Department of EconomicsLund UniversityLundSweden
  6. 6.ConsultantPark CityUSA

Personalised recommendations