Agric. Econ. - Czech, 2016, 62(8):378-384 | DOI: 10.17221/174/2015-AGRICECON

Testing the effectiveness of the oath script in reducing the hypothetical bias in the Contingent Valuation MethodOriginal Paper

Tiziana DE-MAGISTRIS1, Faical AKAICHI2, Kamel BEN YOUSSEF3
1 Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria de Aragón (CITA), Gobierno de Aragón, Zaragoza, Spain and Instituto Agroalimentario de Aragón-IA2, (CITA-Universidad de Zaragoza), Zaragoza, Spain
2 Land Economy Environment and Society, Scotland's Rural College (SRUC), Edinburgh, United Kingdom
3 Université Paris Quest Nanterre La Défense, UFR-SEGMI, Nanterre, France

The objective of the study is to investigate the effect of the oath script (HO) in an hypothetical Contingent Valuation survey in a Mediterranean country (e.g. Italy). Hence, there were conducted the CE surveys with three treatments: (1) CV without a cognitive task, (2) CV with a CT script, and (3) CV with a HO. The findings showed that the effectiveness of the HO script depends on the participants' socio-demographic characteristics. For instance, it was found that the HO script could help to reduce the hypothetical bias for people who possess a high educational level in contrast with those people with low education and low income. Hence, the findings suggest that the oath script not only does not a guarantee the reduction of the hypothetical bias, but it also does not explain the mixed results found in the previous studies.

Keywords: cheap talk script, Contingent Valuation, oath script, Willingness-To-Pay

Published: August 31, 2016  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
DE-MAGISTRIS T, AKAICHI F, YOUSSEF KB. Testing the effectiveness of the oath script in reducing the hypothetical bias in the Contingent Valuation Method. Agric. Econ. - Czech. 2016;62(8):378-384. doi: 10.17221/174/2015-AGRICECON.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Brummett R.G., Nayga R.M., Wu X. (2007): On the use of cheap talk in new product valuation. Economics Bulletin, 2: 1-9.
    2. Cameron T., Poe G., Ethier R., Schulze W. (2002): Alternative non-market value-elicitation methods: are the underlying preferences the same? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44: 391-425; doi: 10.1006/jeem.2001.1210 Go to original source...
    3. Carlsson F., Martinsson P. (2001): Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments? Application to the valuation of the environment. Journal of Environmental and Economics Management, 41: 179-192; doi: 10.1006/jeem.2000.1138 Go to original source...
    4. Carlsson F., Kataria M., Krupnick A., Lampi E., Löfgren A., Qin P., Sterner T., Chung S. (2010): The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: a multiple country test of an oath script. Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization, 89: 105-121; doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2013.02.003 Go to original source...
    5. Chang J.B., Lusk J., Norwood F.B. (2009): How closely do hypothetical surveys and laboratory experiments predict field behaviour? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91: 518-534; doi: 10.1111/j.14678276.2008.01242.x Go to original source...
    6. Cummings R.G., Taylor L.O. (1999): Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the Contingent Valuation Method. The American Economic Review, 89: 649-665. Go to original source...
    7. De-Magistris T., Pascucci S. (2014): The effect of the solemn oath script in hypothetical choice experiment survey: A pilot study. Economics Letters, 123: 252-255; doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2014.02.016 Go to original source...
    8. De-Magistris T., Gracia A., Nayga R. (2013): On the Use of honesty priming task to mitigate hypothetical bias in choice experiments. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 95: 1136-1154; doi: 10.1093/ajae/aat052 Go to original source...
    9. European Commission (2001): Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility. Green Paper and COM 366. Brussels.
    10. Jacquemet N., Jame A.G., Luchini S., Shogren J.F. (2011): Social psychology and environmental economics: a new look at ex-ante corrections of biases preference evaluation. Environmental Resource Economics, 48: 413-433; doi: 10.1007/s10640-010-9448-4 Go to original source...
    11. Jacquemet N., Joule R.V., Luchini S., Shogren J.F. (2013): Preference elicitation under oath. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 65: 110-132; doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2012.05.004 Go to original source...
    12. Johansson-Stenman O., Svedsäter H. (2008): Measuring hypothetical bias in choice experiments: The importance of cognitive consistency. The Berkeley Electronic Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy, 8: article 41. Available at http://www.bepress.com/bejeap/vol8/iss1/art41 Go to original source...
    13. Lindgreen A., Swaen V. (2010): Corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12: 1-7; doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00277.x Go to original source...
    14. List J.A. (2001): Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auctions for sportscards. American Economic Review, 91: 1498-1507; doi: 10.1257/aer.91.5.1498 Go to original source...
    15. List J.A., Gallet G.A. (2001): What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical state value? Environmental and Resource Economics, 20: 241-254; doi: 10.1023/a:1012791822804 Go to original source...
    16. Lockett A., Moon J., Visser W. (2006): Corporate social responsibility in management research: focus, nature, salience and sources of influence. Journal of Management Studies, 43: 115-136; doi: 10.1111/j.14676486.2006.00585.x Go to original source...
    17. Loomis J., Bell P., Cooney H., Asmus C. (2009): A comparison of actual and hypothetical willingness to pay of parents and non-parents for protecting infant health: The case of nitrates in drinking water. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 41, 697-712. Go to original source...
    18. Murphy J.J., Geoffrey J.A., Stevens T.H., Weatherhead D. (2005): Meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Journal of Environmental and Resource Economics, 30: 313-325; doi: 10.1007/s10640004-3332-z Go to original source...
    19. Silva A., Nayga R., Campbell B.L., Park L.J. (2011): Revisiting cheap talk with new evidence from a field experiment. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 36: 280-291.
    20. Tonsor G.T., Shupp R.S. (2011): Cheap talk scripts online choice experiment: looking beyond the mean. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 93: 1015-1031; doi: 10.1093/ajae/aar036 Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content