Abstract
In a choice experiment study, willingness to pay for a public good estimated from hypothetical choices was three times as large as willingness to pay estimated from choices requiring actual payment. This hypothetical bias was related to the stated level of certainty of respondents. We develop protocols to measure respondent certainty in the context of a choice experiment, and to calibrate hypothetical choices using these certainty measures. While both the measurement of respondent certainty and the use of certainty measures to calibrate responses are complicated by the multiple-choice nature of choice experiments, calibration successfully mitigated hypothetical bias in this application. (JEL Q51)
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Log in using your username and password
Purchase access
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- Early Exposure to Nature and Willingness to Pay for It: The Value of Tallgrass Prairie Grassland Restoration
- Early Exposure to Nature and Willingness-To-Pay for It: The Value of Tallgrass Prairie Grassland Restoration
- Using Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept to Value Farmland Preservation under Ambiguous Property Rights and Preference Uncertainty