Abstract
This study tests the hypothesis that hypothetical bias may not be related to value elicitation; rather it may be a value formation problem. When participants are asked to indicate their willingness to pay for an induced value good, we find no evidence of hypothetical bias for three different commodity types (public good, private good, and publicly provided private good). However, when these same subjects are asked to value homegrown goods with no pre-assigned induced value using the same elicitation mechanism, hypothetical values are roughly double actual payments in all three cases. These results support the hypothesis that the process of forming values in a homegrown setting may be a key contributor to hypothetical bias.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aadland D, Caplan AJ (2003) Willingness to pay for curbside recycling with detection and mitigation of hypothetical bias. Am J Agric Econ 85(2): 492–502
Aadland D, Caplan AJ (2006) Cheap talk reconsidered: Evidence from CVM. Journal of Economics and Behavioral Organization 60(4): 562–578
Becker G, DeGroot M, Marschak J (1964) Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behav Sci 9(3): 226–232
Blumenschein K, Johannesson M, Blomquist GC, Liljas B, O’Conor RM (1998) All results on expressed certainty and hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. South Econ J 65(1): 169–177
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): 353–361
Burton AC, Carson KS, Chilton SM, Hutchinson WG (2003) An experimental investigation of explanations for inconsistencies in responses to second offers in double referenda. J Environ Econ Manag 46(3): 472–489
Champ PA, Bishop RC, Brown TC, McCollum DW (1997) Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. J Environ Econ Manag 33(2): 151–162
Champ PA, Bishop RC (2001) Donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: an empirical study of hypothetical bias. Environ Resour Econ 19(4): 383–402
Cherry TL, Frykblom P, Shogren J, List J, Williams M (2004) Laboratory testbeds and nonmarket valuation: the case of bidding behavior in a second price auction with an outside option. Environ Resour Econ 29(3): 285–294
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): 649–665
Ethier RG, Poe GL, Schulze WD, Clark J (2000) A comparison of hypothetical phone and mail contingent valuation responses for green-pricing electricity programs. Land Econ 76(1): 54–67
Gregory R, Lichenstein S, Brown TC, Peterson GL, Slovic P (1995) How precise are monetary representations of environmental improvements? Land Econ 71(4): 462–473
Gregory R, Slovic P (1997) A constructive approach to environmental valuation. Ecol Econ 21(3): 175–181
Harrison GW, Harstad RM, Rutström EE (2004) Experimental methods and elicitation of values. Exp Econ 7(2): 123–140
Harrison GW, Rutström EE (2008) Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in Value Elicitation Methods. In: Plott CR, Smith VL Handbook of experimental economics results volume 1. North-Holland, New York
Horowitz JK (2006) The Becker-DeGroot-Marschak mechanism is not necessarily incentive compatible, even for non-random goods. Econ Lett 93: 6–11
Horowitz JK, McConnell KE, Murphy JJ Forthcoming. Behavioral foundations of environmental economics and valuation. In: List JA, Price MF (eds) Handbook on experimental economics and the environment. Northampton: Edward Elgar
Irwin JR, McClelland GH, McKee M, Schulze WD, Norden NE (1998) Payoff dominance vs. cognitive transparency in decision making. Econ Inq 36(2): 272–285
Johannesson M, Liljas B, Johansson P (1998) An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions and real purchase decisions. Appl Econ 30: 643–647
Li C-Z, Mattsson L (1995) Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: an improved structural model for contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 28(2): 256–269
List JA (2001) Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? evidence from field auctions for sports cards. Am Econ Rev 91(5): 1498–1507
List JA, Gallet C (2001) What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environ Resour Econ 20(3): 241–254
Lusk JL (2003) Willingness-to-pay for golden rice. Am J Agric Econ 85(4): 840–856
Lusk JL, Rousu M (2006) Market price endogeneity and accuracy of value elicitation mechanisms. In: List JA Using experimental methods in environmental and resource economics. Edward Elgar, Northampton
Mann HB, Whitney DR (1947) On a test whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann Math Stat 18: 50–60
Mitani Y, Flores NE (2009) Demand revelation, hypothetical bias, and threshold public goods provision. Environ Resour Econ 44(2): 231–243
Murphy JJ, Stevens TH (2004) Contingent valuation, hypothetical bias and experimental economics. Agric Resour Econ Rev 33(2): 182–192
Murphy JJ, Stevens TH, Allen PG, Weatherhead D (2005) A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environ Resour Econ 30(3): 313–325
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): 327–343
Noussair C, Robin S, Ruffieux B (2004) Revealing consumers’ willingness-to-pay: a comparison of the BDM mechanism and the Vickrey auction. J Econ Psychol 25: 725–741
Opaluch JJ, Segerson K (1989) Rational roots of ‘irrational’ behavior: new theories of economic decision-making. Northeastern J Agric Resour Econ 18(2): 81–95
Plott CR, Zeiler K (2005) The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap, the “endowment effect,” subject misconceptions, and the experimental procedures for eliciting evaluations. Am Econ Rev 95(3): 530–545
Poe GL, Clark JE, Rondeau D, Schulze WD (2002) Provision point mechanisms and field validity tests of contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 23(1): 105–131
Polomé P (2003) Experimental evidence on deliberate misrepresentation in referendum contingent valuation. J Econ Behav Organ 52((3): 387–401
Schkade D, Payne JW (1994) How people respond to contingent valuation questions: a verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation. J Environ Econ Manag 26: 88–109
Shogren JF, Margolis M, Koo C, List JA (2001) A random nth-price auction. J Econ Behav Organ 46(4): 409–421
Taylor LO, McKee M, Laury SK, Cummings RG (2001) Induced-value tests of the referendum voting mechanism. Econ Lett 71(1): 61–65
Vossler CA, McKee M (2006) Induced-value tests of contingent valuation elicitation mechanisms. Environ Resour Econ 35(2): 137–168
Wang H (1997) Treatment of ‘don’t-know’ responses in contingent valuation surveys: a random valuation model. J Environ Econ Manag 32(2): 219–232
Wilcoxon F (1945) Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics 1: 80–83
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This paper has not been submitted elsewhere in identical or similar form, nor will it be during the first three months after its submission to the Publisher.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Murphy, J.J., Stevens, T.H. & Yadav, L. A Comparison of Induced Value and Home-Grown Value Experiments to Test for Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation. Environ Resource Econ 47, 111–123 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9367-4
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9367-4