A Choice Matching Approach for Discrete Choice Analysis: An Experimental Investigation in the Laboratory

References

1. ↵
   1. Adamowicz, Wiktor L.

   2004. “What’s it Worth? An Examination of Historical Trends and Future Directions in Environmental Valuation.” Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 48: 419–43.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
2. ↵
   1. Ajzen, Icek,
   2. Thomas C. Brown, and
   3. Franklin Carvajal

   . 2004. “Explaining the Discrepancy between Intentions and Actions: The Case of Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30 (9): 1108–21.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. ↵
   1. Arechar, Antonio A.,
   2. Simon Gächter, and
   3. Lucas Molleman

   . 2018. “Conducting Interactive Experiments Online.” Experimental Economics 21: 99–131.

   OpenUrl
4. ↵
   1. Asioli, Daniele,
   2. T. Næs,
   3. A. Øvrum, and
   4. V. L. Almli

   . 2016. “Comparison of Rating-Based and Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis Models: A Case Study Based on Preferences for Iced Coffee in Norway.” Food Quality and Preference 48 (A): 174–84.

   OpenUrl
5. ↵
   1. Bateman, Ian J.,
   2. Brett H. Day,
   3. Andrew P. Jones, and
   4. Simon Jude

   . 2009. “Reducing Gain–Loss Asymmetry: A Virtual Reality Choice Experiment Valuing Land Use Change.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 58 (1): 106–18.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
6. ↵
   1. Bello, Muhammad, and
   2. Awudu Abdulai

   . 2016. “Impact of Ex-Ante Hypothetical Bias Mitigation Methods on Attribute Non-attendance in Choice Experiments.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 98 (5): 1486–506.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
7. ↵
   1. Bishop, Richard C., and
   2. Kevin J. Boyle

   . 2019. “Reliability and Validity in Nonmarket Valuation.” Environmental and Resource Economics 72: 559–82.

   OpenUrl
8. ↵
   1. Bliem, Markus,
   2. Michael Getzner, and
   3. Pietra Rodiga-Laßnig

   . 2012. “Temporal Stability of Individual Preferences for River Restoration in Austria Using a Choice Experiment.” Journal of Environmental Management 103: 65–73.

   OpenUrlPubMed
9. ↵
   1. Börjesson, Maria

   2014. “Inter-temporal Variation in the Travel Time and Travel Cost Parameters of Transport Models.” Transportation 41: 377–96.

   OpenUrl
10. ↵
    1. Boyle, Kevin, J.,
    2. Thomas P. Holmes,
    3. Mario F. Teisl, and
    4. Brian Roe

    . 2001. “A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83: 441–54.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
11. ↵
    1. Brier, Glenn W.

    1950. “Verification of Forecasts Expressed in Terms of Probability.” Monthly Weather Review 78 (1): 1–3.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
12. ↵
    1. Brouwer, Roy,
    2. Ivan Logar, and
    3. Oleg Sheremet

    . 2017. “Choice Consistency and Preference Stability in Test-Retests of Discrete Choice Experiment and Open-Ended Willingness to Pay Elicitation Formats.” Environmental Resource Economics 68: 729–51.

    OpenUrl
13. ↵
    1. Bryan, Stirling,
    2. Lisa Gold,
    3. Rob Sheldon, and
    4. Martin Buxton

    . 2000. “Preference Measurement Using Conjoint Methods: An Empirical Investigation of Reliability.” Health Economics 9(5): 385–95.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
14. ↵
    1. Camerer, Colin

    1995. “Individual Decision Making.” In The Handbook of Experimental Economics, edited by John H. Kagel and Alvin E. Roth, 357–703. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
15. ↵
    1. Camerer, Colin.

    1999. “Behavioral Economics: Reunifying Psychology and Economics.” Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences 96 (19): 10575–77.

    OpenUrl
16. ↵
    1. Campbell, Danny,
    2. Marco Boeri,
    3. Edel Doherty, and
    4. W. George Hutchinson

    . 2015. “Learning, Fatigue and Preference Formation in Discrete Choice Experiments.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 119: 345–63.

    OpenUrl
17. ↵
    1. Caparros, Alejandro,
    2. José L. Oviedo, and
    3. Pablo Campos

    . 2008. “Would You Choose Your Preferred Option? Comparing Choice and Recoded Ranking Experiments.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90 (3): 843–55.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
18. ↵
    1. Carlsson, Fredrik,
    2. Dinky Daruvala, and
    3. Henrik Jaldell

    . 2010. “Do You Do What You Say or Do You Do What You Say Others Do?” Journal of Choice Modelling 3 (2): 113–33.

    OpenUrl
19. ↵
    1. Carlsson, Fredrik,
    2. Peter Frykblom, and
    3. Carl Johan Lagerkvist

    . 2005. “Using Cheap Talk as a Test of Validity in Choice Experiments.” Economics Letters 89: 147–52.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
20. ↵
    1. Carson, Katherine Silz,
    2. Susan M. Chilton, and
    3. W. George Hutchinson

    . 2009. “Necessary Conditions for Demand Revelation in Double Referenda.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 57 (2): 219–25.

    OpenUrl
21. ↵
    1. Carson, Katherine Silz,
    2. Susan M. Chilton,
    3. W. George Hutchinson, and
    4. Riccardo Scarpa

    . 2020. “Public Resource Allocation, Strategic Behavior, and Status Quo Bias in Choice Experiments.” Public Choice 185: 1–19.

    OpenUrl
22. ↵
    1. Carson, Richard T.,
    2. Nicholas E. Flores,
    3. Kerry M. Martin, and
    4. Jennifer L. Wright

    . 1996. “Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preferences Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-public Goods.” Land Economics 72 (1): 80–99.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
23. ↵
    1. Carson, Richard T., and
    2. Theodore Groves

    . 2007. “Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions.” Environmental and Resource Economics 37: 181–210.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
24. ↵
    1. Carson, Richard T.,
    2. Theodore Groves, and
    3. John A. List

    . 2014. “Consequentiality: A Theoretical and Experimental Exploration of a Single Binary Choice.” Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economics 1: 171–207.

    OpenUrl
25. ↵
    1. Cerroni, Simone,
    2. Verity Watson,
    3. Dimitrios Kalentakis, and
    4. Jennie I. Macdiarmid

    . 2019. “Value-Elicitation and Value-Formation Properties of Discrete Choice Experiments and Experimental Auctions.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 46 (1): 3–27.

    OpenUrl
26. ↵
    1. Champ, Patricia A.,
    2. Richard C. Bishop,
    3. Thomas C. Brown, and
    4. Daniel W. McCollum

    . 1997. “Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Non Use Benefits from Public Goods.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 3: 151–62.

    OpenUrl
27. ↵
    1. ChoiceMetrics

    . 2018. Ngene 1.1 User Manual and Reference Guide. Available at http://www.choice-metrics.com/NgeneManual130.pdf.
28. ↵
    1. Christie, Mike, and
    2. Christopher D. Azevedo

    . 2009. “Testing the Consistency between Standard Contingent Valuation, Repeated Contingent Valuation and Choice Experiments.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 60 (1): 154–70.

    OpenUrl
29. ↵
    1. Cummings, Ronald G., and
    2. Laura O. Taylor

    . 1999. “Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method.” American Economic Review 89: 649–65.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
30. ↵
    1. Cvitanić, Jakša,
    2. Dražen Prelec,
    3. Blake Riley, and
    4. Benjamin Tereick

    . 2019. “Honesty via ChoiceMatching.” American Economic Review: Insights 1 (2): 179–92.

    OpenUrl
31. ↵
    1. Czajkowski, Mikołaj,
    2. Anna Barczak, and
    3. Wiktor Budziński

    . 2016. “Preference and WTP Stability for Public Forest Management.” Forest Policy and Economics 71: 11–22.

    OpenUrl
32. ↵
    1. Czajkowski, Mikołaj,
    2. Christian A. Vossler,
    3. Wiktor Budziński,
    4. Aleksandra Wiśniewska, and
    5. Ewa Zawojska

    . 2017. “Addressing Empirical Challenges Related to the Incentive Compatibility of Stated Preferences Methods.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 142: 47–63.

    OpenUrl
33. ↵
    1. Day, Brett,
    2. Ian J. Bateman,
    3. Richard T. Carson,
    4. Diane Dupont,
    5. Jordan J. Louviere,
    6. Sanae Morimoto,
    7. Riccardo Scarpa, and
    8. Paul Wang

    . 2012. “Ordering Effects and Choice Set Awareness in Repeat-Response Stated Preference Studies.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 63 (1): 73–91.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
34. ↵
    1. de-Magistris, Tiziana,
    2. Azucena Gracia, and
    3. Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr.

    2013. “On the Use of Honesty Priming Tasks to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 95 (5): 1136–54.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
35. ↵
    1. de-Magistris, Tiziana, and
    2. Stefanpo Pascucci

    . 2014. “The Effect of the Solemn Oath Script in Hypothetical Choice Experiment Survey: A Pilot Study.” Economics Letters 123 (2): 252–55.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
36. ↵
    1. Fang, Di,
    2. Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr.,
    3. Grant West,
    4. Claudia Bazzani,
    5. Wei Yang,
    6. Benjamin C. Lok,
    7. Charles Levy, and
    8. Heather A. Snell

    . 2021. “On the Use of Virtual Reality in Mitigating Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 103 (1): 142–61.

    OpenUrl
37. ↵
    1. Fifer, Simone,
    2. John Rose, and
    3. Stephen Greaves

    . 2014. “Hypothetical Bias in Stated Choice Experiments: Is It a Problem? And If So, How Do We Deal with It?” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 61: 164–77.

    OpenUrl
38. ↵
    1. Fischbacher, Urs.

    2007. “z-Tree: Zurich Toolbox for Ready-Made Economic Experiments.” Experimental Economics 10 (2): 171–78.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
39. ↵
    1. Fisher, Robert J.

    1993. “Social Desirability Questioning and the Validity of Indirect Questioning.” Journal of Consumer Research 20 (2): 303–15.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
40. ↵
    1. Fisher, Robert J., and
    2. Gerard J. Tellis

    . 1998. “Removing Social Desirability Bias with Indirect Questioning: Is the Cure Worse Than the Disease?” Advances in Consumer Research 25: 563–67.

    OpenUrl
41. ↵
    1. Food Standards Agency

    . 2016. Guide to Creating a Front of Pack (FoP) Nutrition Label for Prepacked Products Sold through Retail Outlets. Available at https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/document/fop-guidance_0.pdf.
42. ↵
    1. Gneezy, Uri, and
    2. A. Imas

    . 2017. “Lab in the Field: Measuring Preferences in the Wild.” In Handbook of Economic Field Experiments. Vol. 1, edited by Abhijt Vinajak Banerjee and Esther Duflo, 439–64. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    OpenUrl
43. ↵
    1. Haghani, Milad, and
    2. Majid Sarvi

    . 2019. “Laboratory Experimentation and Simulation of Discrete Direction Choices: Investigating Hypothetical Bias, Decision-Rule Effect and External Validity Based on Aggregate Prediction Measures.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 130: 134–57.

    OpenUrl
44. ↵
    1. Haire, Mason.

    1950. “Projective Techniques in Market Research.” Journal of Marketing 14 (5): 649–56.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
45. ↵
    1. Hanley, Nick,
    2. Douglas MacMillan,
    3. Robert E. Wright,
    4. Craig Bullock,
    5. Ian Simpson,
    6. Dave Parsisson, and
    7. Bob Crabtree

    . 1998. “Contingent Valuation versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 49 (1): 1–15.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
46. ↵
    1. Harrison, Glenn W.

    2014. “Real Choices and Hypothetical Choices.” In Handbook of Choice Modelling, edited by Stephane Hess and Andrew Daly, 236–54. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
47. ↵
    1. Harrison, Glenn W.,
    2. Ronald M. Harstad, and
    3. E. Elisabeth Rutström

    . 2004. “Experimental Methods and Elicitation of Values.” Experimental Economics 7: 123–40.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
48. 1. Harrison, Glenn W., and
    2. John A. List

    . 2004. “Field Experiments.” Journal of Economic Literature 42 (4): 1009–55.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
49. ↵
    1. Harrison, Glenn W.,
    2. Jimmy Martínez-Correa,
    3. J. Tod Swarthout, and
    4. Eric R. Ulm

    . 2017. “Scoring Rules for Subjective Probability Distributions.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 134: 430–48.

    OpenUrl
50. ↵
    1. Harrison, Glenn W., and
    2. E. Elisabeth Rutström

    . 2008. “Experimental Evidence on the Existence of Hypothetical Bias in Value Elicitation Methods.” In Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edited by Charles R. Plott and Vernon L. Smith, 752–67. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
51. ↵
    1. Hensher, David A., and
    2. William H.,
    3. Greene

    . 2003. “The Mixed Logit Model: The State of Practice.” Transportation 30: 133–76.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
52. ↵
    1. Hess, Stephan,
    2. David A. Hensher, and
    3. Andrew Daly

    . 2012. “Not Bored Yet: Revisiting Respondent Fatigue in Stated Choice Experiments.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 46 (3): 626–44.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
53. ↵
    1. Hole, Arne Risa, and
    2. Julie Riise Kolstad

    . 2012. “Mixed Logit Estimation of Willingness to Pay Distributions: A Comparison of Models in Preference and WTP Space Using Data from a Health-Related Choice Experiment.” Empirical Economics 42: 445–69.

    OpenUrl
54. ↵
    1. Holmes, Thomas P.,
    2. Wiktor L. Adamo wicz, and
    3. Fredrik Carlsson

    . 2017. “Choice Experiments.” In A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation, edited by Patricia A. Champ, Kevin J. Boyle, and Thomas C. Brown, chap. 5. New York: Springer.
55. ↵
    1. Howard, Gregory,
    2. Brian E. Roe,
    3. Erik C. Nisbet, and
    4. Jay F. Martin

    . 2017. “Hypothetical Bias Mitigation Techniques in Choice Experiments: Do Cheap Talk and Honesty Priming Effects Fade with Repeated Choices?” Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 4 (2): 543–73.

    OpenUrl
56. ↵
    1. Jacquemet, Nicolas,
    2. Alexander James,
    3. Stepahne Luchini, and
    4. Jason F. Shogren

    . 2017. “Referenda under Oath.” Environmental and Resource Economics 65 (3): 479–504.

    OpenUrl
57. 1. Jacquemet, Nicolas,
    2. Robert-Vincent Joule,
    3. Stephane Luchini, and
    4. Jason F. Shogren

    . 2013. “Preference Elicitation under Oath.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 65: 110–32.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
58. ↵
    1. Janssen, Ellen M.,
    2. Deborah A. Marshall,
    3. A. Brett Hauber, and
    4. John F. Bridges

    . 2017. “Improving the Quality of Discrete-Choice Experiments in Health: How Can We Assess Validity and Reliability?” Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research 17 (6): 531–42.

    OpenUrl
59. ↵
    1. Johnston, Robert J.,
    2. Kevin J. Boyle,
    3. Wiktor Adam-owicz,
    4. Jeff Bennett,
    5. Roy Brouwer,
    6. Trudy Ann Cameron,
    7. W. Michael Hanemann, et al.

    2017. “Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies.” Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 4 (2): 319–405.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
60. ↵
    1. Kealy, Mari Jo,
    2. Mark Montgomery, and
    3. John F. Dovidio

    . 1990. “Reliability and Predictive Validity of Contingent Values: Does the Nature of the Good Matter?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 19: 244–63.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
61. 1. Kemper, Nathan P.,
    2. Jennie S. Popp, and
    3. Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr.

    2020. “A Query Theory Account of a Discrete Choice Experiment under Oath.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 47 (3): 1133–72.

    OpenUrl
62. ↵
    1. Krinsky, Itzhak, and
    2. A. Leslie Robb

    . 1986. “On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities.” Review of Economics and Statistics 68 (4): 715–19.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
63. 1. Lewis, Karen E.,
    2. Carola Grebitus, and
    3. Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr.

    2016. “U.S. Consumers’ Preferences for Imported and Genetically Modified Sugar: Examining Policy Consequentiality in a Choice Experiment.” Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 65: 1–8.

    OpenUrl
64. ↵
    1. Liebe, Ulf,
    2. Jürgen Meyerhoff, and
    3. Volkmar Hartje

    . 2012. “Test-Retest Reliability of Choice Experiments in Environmental Valuation.” Environmental and Resource Economics 53 (3): 389–407.

    OpenUrl
65. ↵
    1. Lin, Wen,
    2. David L. Ortega, and
    3. Vincenzina Caputo

    . 2019. “Are Ex-Ante Hypothetical Bias Calibration Methods Context Dependent? Evidence from Online Food Shoppers in China.” Journal of Consumer Affairs 53 (2): 504–44.

    OpenUrl
66. ↵
    1. List, John A., and
    2. Craig A. Gallet

    . 2001. “What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?” Environmental and Resource Economics 20 (3): 241–54.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
67. ↵
    1. Lloyd-Smith, Patrick,
    2. Ewa Zawojska, and
    3. Wiktor Adamowicz

    , 2021. “Moving beyond the Contingent Valuation versus Choice Experiment Debate: Presentation Effects in Stated Preference.” Land Economics 96 (1): 1–24.

    OpenUrl
68. ↵
    1. Loewestein, George

    1999. “Experimental Economics from the Vantage-Point of Behavioural Economics.” Economic Journal 109 (453): 25–34.

    OpenUrl
69. ↵
    1. Loomis, John

    , 2011. “What’s to Know about Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation Studies.” Journal of Economic Surveys 25 (2): 363–70.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
70. ↵
    1. Loomis, John.

    2014. “WAEA Keynote Address: Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 39 (1): 34–46.

    OpenUrl
71. ↵
    1. Lusk, Jayson L., and
    2. F. Bailey Norwood

    . 2009a. “An Inferred Valuation Method.” Land Economics 85 (3): 500–514.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
72. ↵
    1. Lusk, Jayson L., and
    2. F. Bailey Norwood

    . 2009b. “Bridging the Gap between Laboratory Experiments and Naturally Occurring Markets: An Inferred Valuation Method.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 58: 236–50.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
73. ↵
    1. Macdiarmid, Jennie I.,
    2. Simone Cerroni,
    3. Dimitrios Kalentakis, and
    4. Christian Reynolds

    . 2021. “How Important Is Healthiness, Carbon Footprint and Meat Content When Purchasing a Ready Meal? Evidence from a Non-hypothetical Discrete Choice Experiment.” Journal of Cleaner Production 282: 124510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124510.
74. ↵
    1. Mamkhezri, Jamal,
    2. Jennifer A. Thacher,
    3. Janie M. Chermak, and
    4. Robert P. Berrens

    . 2020. “Does the Solemn Oath Lower WTP Responses in a Discrete Choice Experiment Application to Solar Energy?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy 9 (4): 447–73.

    OpenUrl
75. ↵
    1. Mariel, Petr,
    2. David Hoyos,
    3. Jürgen Meyerhoff,
    4. Mikolaj Czajkowski,
    5. Thijs Dekker,
    6. Klaus Glenk,
    7. Jette Bredahl Jacobsen, et al.

    2021. “Validity and Reliability.” In Environmental Valuation with Discrete Choice Experiments: Guidance on Design, Implementation and Data Analysis, by Petr Mariel, David Hoyos, Jürgen Meyerhoff, Mikolaj Czajkowski, Thijs Dekker, Klaus Glenk, Jette Bredahl Jacobsen, et al., 111–23. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62669-3.
76. ↵
    1. Matthews, Yvonne,
    2. Riccardo Scarpa, and
    3. Dan Marsh

    . 2017. “Stability of Willingness-to-Pay for Coastal Management: A Choice Experiment across Three Time Periods.” Ecological Economics 138: 64–73.

    OpenUrl
77. ↵
    1. McFadden, Daniel

    1973. “Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behaviour.” In Frontiers in Econometrics, edited by P. Zarembka, 105–42. New York: Academic Press.
78. ↵
    1. McFadden, Daniel, and
    2. Kenneth Train

    . 2017. Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
79. ↵
    1. McNair, Ben J.,
    2. Jeff Bennett, and
    3. David A. Hensher

    . 2011. “A Comparison of Responses to Single and Repeated Discrete Choice Questions.” Resource and Energy Economics 33 (3): 554–71.

    OpenUrl
80. ↵
    1. Menapace, Luisa, and
    2. Roberta Raffaelli

    . 2020. “Unraveling Hypothetical Bias in Discrete Choice Experiments.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 176: 416–30.

    OpenUrl
81. ↵
    1. Mitani, Yohei, and
    2. Nicholas Flores

    . 2014. “Hypothetical Bias Reconsidered: Payment and Provision Uncertainties in a Threshold Provision Mechanism.” Environmental & Resource Economics 59 (3): 433–54.

    OpenUrl
82. ↵
    1. Mitchell, Robert Cameron, and
    2. Richard T Carson

    . 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: RFF Press.
83. 1. Mørkbak, Morten Raun, and
    2. Søren Bøye Olsen

    . 2014. “A Within-Sample Investigation of Test-Retest Reliability in Choice Experiment Surveys with Real Economic Incentives.” Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 59: 375–92.

    OpenUrl
84. ↵
    1. Murphy, Allan H., and
    2. Robert L. Winkler

    . 1970. “Scoring Rules in Probability Assessment and Evaluation.” Acta Psychologica 34: 273–86.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
85. ↵
    1. Murphy, James,
    2. P. Geoffrey Allen,
    3. Thomas Stevens, and
    4. Darryl Wheatherhead

    , 2005. “A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation.” Environmental & Resource Economics 30 (3): 313–25.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
86. ↵
    1. Norwood, F. Bailey, and
    2. Jayson L. Lusk

    . 2011. “Social Desirability Bias in Real, Hypothetical, and Inferred Valuation Experiments.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 93 (2): 528–34.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
87. ↵
    1. Oehlmann Malte, and
    2. Jürgen Meyerhoff

    . 2017. “Stated Preferences towards Renewable Energy Alternatives in Germany: Do the Consequentiality of the Survey and Trust in Institutions Matter?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy 6 (1): 1–16.

    OpenUrl
88. ↵
    1. Özdemir, Semra,
    2. F. Reed Johnson, and
    3. A. Brett Hauber

    . 2009. “Hypothetical Bias, Cheap Talk, and Stated Willingness to Pay for Health Care.” Journal of Health Economics 28 (4): 894–901.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
89. ↵
    1. Penn, Jerrod, and
    2. Wuyang Hu

    . 2018. “Understanding Hypothetical Bias: An Enhanced Meta-analysis.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 100 (4): 1186–1206.

    OpenUrl
90. ↵
    1. Poe, Gregory L.,
    2. Kelly L. Giraud, and
    3. John B. Loomis

    . 2005. “Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87 (2): 353–65.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
91. ↵
    1. Prelec, Drazen.

    2004. “A Bayesian Truth Serum for Subjective Data.” Science 306: 462–66.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
92. ↵
    1. Price, J.,
    2. D. Dupont, and
    3. Wiktor Adamowicz

    . 2017. “As Time Goes By: Examination of Temporal Stability across Stated Preference Question Formats.” Environmental & Resource Economics 68: 643–62.

    OpenUrl
93. ↵
    1. Radanovic, Goran, and
    2. Boi Faltings

    . 2014. “Incentives for Truthful Information Elicitation of Continuous Signals.” Proceedings of the 28th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 28 (1). Available at https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/8797.
94. ↵
    1. Raffaelli, Roberta,
    2. Mariangela Franch,
    3. Luisa Menapace, and
    4. Simone Cerroni

    . 2021. “Are Tourists Willing to Pay for Decarbonizing Tourism? Two Applications of Indirect Questioning in Discrete Choice Experiments.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 65 (7): 1240–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2021.1918651.

    OpenUrl
95. ↵
    1. Rakotonarivo, O. Sarobidy,
    2. Marije Schaafsma, and
    3. Neal Hockley

    . 2016. “A Systematic Review of the Reliability and Validity of Discrete Choice Experiments in Valuing Non-market Environmental Goods.” Journal of Environmental Management 183: 98–109.

    OpenUrl
96. ↵
    1. Rigby, Dan,
    2. Michael Burton, and
    3. Jo Pluske

    . 2016. “Preference Stability and Choice Consistency in Discrete Choice Experiments.” Environmental & Resource Economics 65: 441–61.

    OpenUrl
97. ↵
    1. Ryan, Mandy,
    2. Ann Netten,
    3. Diane Skåtun, and
    4. Paul Smith

    . 2006. “Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Estimate a Preference-Based Measure of Outcome: An Application to Social Care for Older People.” Journal of Health Economics 25: 927–44.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
98. ↵
    1. Ryan, Mandy, and
    2. Verity Watson

    . 2009. “Comparing Welfare Estimates from Payment Card Contingent Valuation and Discrete Choice Experiments.” Health Economics 18: 389–401.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
99. ↵
    1. Schaafsma, Marije,
    2. Roy Brouwer,
    3. Inge Liekens, and
    4. Leo De Nocker

    . 2014. “Temporal Stability of Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Natural Areas in Choice Experiments: A Test-Retest.” Resource and Energy Economics 38: 243–60.

    OpenUrl
100. ↵
     1. Shogren, Jason F.

     2005. “Experimental Methods and Valuation.” In Handbook of Environmental Economics: Valuing Environmental Changes. Vol. 2, edited by Karl-Göran Mäler and Jeffrey R. Vincent, 969–1027. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

     OpenUrl
101. ↵
     1. Shogren, Jason F.

     2006. “Valuation in the Lab.” Environmental & Resource Economics 34: 163–72.

     OpenUrl
102. ↵
     1. Shogren, Jason F.

     2010. “Experimental Methods in Environmental Economics.” In Behavioural and Experimental Economics: The New Palgrave Economics Collection, edited by Steven N. Durlauf and Lawren E. Blume, 137–45. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
103. ↵
     1. Silva, Andres,
     2. Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr.,
     3. Benjamin Campbell, and
     4. John L. Park

     . 2011. “Revisiting Cheap Talk with New Evidence from a Field Experiment.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 36: 280–91.

     OpenUrlWeb of Science
104. ↵
     1. Skjoldborg, Ulla Slothuus,
     2. Jørgen Lauridsen, and
     3. Peter Junker

     . 2009. “Reliability of the Discrete Choice Experiment at the Input and Output Level in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.” Value in Health 12 (1): 153–58.

     OpenUrl
105. ↵
     1. Smith, Vernon L.

     1976. “Experimental Economics: Induced Value Theory.” American Economic Review 66: 274–79.

     OpenUrlWeb of Science
106. 1. Thiene, Mara, and
     2. Riccardo Scarpa

     . 2009. “Deriving and Testing Efficient Estimates of WTP Distributions in Destination Choice Models.” Environmental & Resource Economics 44: 379–95.

     OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
107. ↵
     1. Train, Kenneth, and
     2. Melvyn Weeks

     . 2005. “Discrete Choice Models in Preference Space and Willingness-to-Pay Space.” In Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics, edited by Riccardo Scarpa and Anna Alberini, 1–16. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
108. ↵
     1. U.K. Government

     . 2019. “National Minimum Wage and National Living Wage Rates.” Available at https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-rates.
109. ↵
     1. van der Pol, Marjon,
     2. Alan Shiell,
     3. Flora Au,
     4. David Johnston, and
     5. Suzanne Tough

     . 2008. “Convergent Validity between a Discrete Choice Experiment and a Direct, Open-Ended Method: Comparison of Preferred Attribute Levels and Willingness to Pay Estimates.” Social Science & Medicine 67 (12): 2043–50.

     OpenUrl
110. ↵
     1. Vossler, Christian A.,
     2. Maurice Doyon, and
     3. Daniel Rondeau

     . 2012. “Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments.” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 4: 145–71.

     OpenUrlCrossRef
111. ↵
     1. Vossler, Christian A., and
     2. Mary F. Evans

     . 2009. “Bridging the Gap between the Field and the Lab: Environmental Goods, Policy Maker Input, and Consequentiality.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 58: 338–45.

     OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
112. ↵
     1. Vossler, Christian A., and
     2. Ewa Zawojska

     . 2020. “Behavioral Drivers or Economic Incentives? Toward a Better Understanding of Elicitation Effects in Stated Preference Studies.” Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 7 (2): 279–303.

     OpenUrl
113. ↵
     1. Witkowski, Jens, and
     2. David C. Parkes

     . 2012. “A Robust Bayesian Truth Serum for Small Populations.” Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 26 (1): 1492–98. Available at https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/8261.

     OpenUrl
114. ↵
     1. Wuepper, David,
     2. Alexandra Clemm, and
     3. Philipp Wree

     . 2019. “The Preference for Sustainable Coffee and a New Approach for Dealing with Hypothetical Bias.” Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organisation 158: 475–86.

     OpenUrl
115. ↵
     1. Yadav, Lava,
     2. Thomas M. van Rensburg, and
     3. Hugh Kelley

     . 2013. “A Comparison between the Conventional Stated Preference Technique and an Inferred Valuation Approach.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 64 (2): 405–22.

     OpenUrl
116. ↵
     1. Yangui, Ahmed,
     2. Faical Akaichi,
     3. Montserrat Costa-Font, and
     4. José Maria Gil

     . 2019. “Comparing Results of Ranking Conjoint Analyses: Best–Worst Scaling and Discrete Choice Experiments in a Non-hypothetical Context.” Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 63: 221–46.

     OpenUrl
117. ↵
     1. Zawojska, Ewa,
     2. Anna Bartczak, and
     3. Mikolaj Czajkowski

     . 2019. “Disentangling the Effects of Policy and Payment Consequentiality and Risk Attitudes on Stated Preferences.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 93: 63–84.

     OpenUrl
118. ↵
     1. Zizzo, Daniel John

     2010. “Experimenter Demand Effects in Economic Experiments.” Experimental Economics 13 (1): 75–98.

     OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science