Information Videos Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in Discrete Choice Experiments

References

1. 1. Andreoni, J.

   (1995). Warm-glow versus cold-prickle: the effects of positive and negative framing on cooperation in experiments. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(1), 1–21.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
2. 1. Bahety, G.,
   2. Bauhoff, S.,
   3. Patel, D., &
   4. Potter, J.

   (2021). Texts don’t nudge: An adaptive trial to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in India. Journal of Development Economics, 153, 102747.

   OpenUrlPubMed
3. 1. Balew, S.,
   2. Bulte, E.,
   3. Abro, Z., &
   4. Kassie, M.

   (2023). Incentivizing and nudging farmers to spread information: Experimental evidence from Ethiopia. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 105(3), 994–1010.

   OpenUrl
4. 1. Banerjee, A.,
   2. Alsan, M.,
   3. Breza, E.,
   4. Chandrasekhar, A. G.,
   5. Chowdhury, A.,
   6. Duflo, E., … &
   7. Olken, B. A.

   (2020). Messages on COVID-19 prevention in India increased symptoms reporting and adherence to preventive behaviors among 25 million recipients with similar effects on nonrecipient members of their communitie 5. National Bureau of Economic Research, No. w27496).
5. 1. Bartling, B., &
   2. Netzer, N.

   (2016). An externality-robust auction: Theory and experimental evidence. Games and Economic Behavior, 97, 186–204.

   OpenUrl
6. 1. Bateman, I. J.,
   2. Day, B. H.,
   3. Jones, A. P., &
   4. Jude, S.

   (2009). Reducing gain–loss asymmetry: a virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 58(1), 106–118.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
7. 1. Boissiere, M.,
   2. Knight, J. B., &
   3. Sabot, R. H.

   (1985). Earnings, schooling, ability, and cognitive skills. The American Economic Review, 75(5), 1016–1030.

   OpenUrlWeb of Science
8. 1. Caputo, V., &
   2. Scarpa, R.

   (2022). Methodological advances in food choice experiments and modeling: current practices, challenges, and future research directions. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 14, 63–90.

   OpenUrl
9. 1. Carlson, R.,
   2. Chandler, P., &
   3. Sweller, J.

   (2003). Learning and understanding science instructional material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 629.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
10. 1. Carlsson, F.,
    2. Frykblom, P., &
    3. Lagerkvist, C. J.

    (2005). Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments. Economics Letters, 89(2), 147–152.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
11. 1. Carson, R. T.,
    2. Groves, T., &
    3. List, J. A.

    (2014). Consequentiality: A theoretical and experimental exploration of a single binary choice. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 1(1/2), 171–207.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
12. 1. Castro-Alonso, J. C.,
    2. Ayres, P., &
    3. Sweller, J.

    (2019). Instructional visualizations, cognitive load theory, and visuospatial processing. Visuospatial Processing for Education in Health and Natural Sciences, 111–143.
13. 1. Crippa, M.,
    2. Solazzo, E.,
    3. Guizzardi, D.,
    4. Monforti-Ferrario, F.,
    5. Tubiello, F. N., &
    6. Leip, A. J. N. F.

    (2021). Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nature Food, 2(3), 198–209.

    OpenUrlPubMed
14. 1. Cummings, R. G., &
    2. Taylor, L. O.

    (1999). Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. American Economic Review, 89(3), 649–665.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
15. 1. Dahlstrom, M. F.

    (2014). Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111 (supplement_4), 13614–13620.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
16. 1. de Bekker-Grob, E. W.,
    2. Donkers, B.,
    3. Jonker, M. F., &
    4. Stolk, E. A.

    (2015). Sample size requirements for discrete-choice experiments in healthcare: a practical guide. The Patient-PatientCentered Outcomes Research, 8, 373–384.

    OpenUrl
17. 1. De-Magistris, T.,
    2. Gracia, A., & Nayga
    3. Jr, R. M.

    (2013). On the use of honesty priming tasks to mitigate hypothetical bias in choice experiments. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 95(5), 1136–1154.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
18. 1. Depositario, D. P. T.,
    2. Nayga Jr, R. M.,
    3. Wu, X., &
    4. Laude, T. P.

    (2009). Should students be used as subjects in experimental auctions?. Economics Letters, 102(2), 122–124.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
19. 1. DeShazo, J. R., &
    2. Fermo, G.

    (2002). Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44(1), 123–143.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
20. 1. Dohmen, T.,
    2. Falk, A.,
    3. Huffman, D., &
    4. Sunde, U.

    (2010). Are risk aversion and impatience related to cognitive ability?. American Economic Review, 100(3), 1238–1260.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
21. 1. Entem, A.,
    2. Lloyd-Smith, P.,
    3. Adamowicz, W. V. L., &
    4. Boxall, P. C.

    (2022). Using inferred valuation to quantify survey and social desirability bias in stated preference research. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 104(4), 1224–1242.

    OpenUrl
22. 1. Fang, D.,
    2. Nayga Jr, R. M.,
    3. West, G. H.,
    4. Bazzani, C.,
    5. Yang, W.,
    6. Lok, B. C., … &
    7. Snell, H. A.

    (2021). On the use of virtual reality in mitigating hypothetical bias in choice experiments. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 103(1), 142–161.

    OpenUrl
23. 1. Grebitus, C.,
    2. Steiner, B., &
    3. Veeman, M. M.

    (2016). Paying for sustainability: A cross-cultural analysis of consumers’ valuations of food and non-food products labeled for carbon and water footprints. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 63, 50–58.

    OpenUrl
24. 1. Hallsworth, M.,
    2. List, J. A.,
    3. Metcalfe, R. D., &
    4. Vlaev, I.

    (2017). The behavioralist as tax collector: Using natural field experiments to enhance tax compliance. Journal of Public Economics, 148, 1431.

    OpenUrl
25. 1. Herriges, J.,
    2. Kling, C.,
    3. Liu, C. C., &
    4. Tobias, J.

    (2010). What are the consequences of consequentially?. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 59(1), 67–81.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
26. 1. Hess, S., &
    2. Rose, J. M.

    (2007). Effects of distributional assumptions on conditional estimates from Mixed Logit models. Arbeitsberichte Verkehrs-undRaumplanung, 423.
27. 1. Höffler, T. N., &
    2. Leutner, D.

    (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A metaanalysis. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 722–738.

    OpenUrl
28. 1. Howard, G.,
    2. Roe, B. E.,
    3. Nisbet, E. C., &
    4. Martin, J. F.

    (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), 543–573.

    OpenUrl
29. 1. Jacquemet, N.,
    2. Joule, R. V.,
    3. Luchini, S., &
    4. Shogren, J. F.

    (2013). Preference elicitation under oath. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 65(1), 110–132.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
30. 1. Khaw, M. W.,
    2. Li, Z., &
    3. Woodford, M.

    (2021). Cognitive imprecision and small-stakes risk aversion. The Review of Economic Studies, 88(4), 1979–2013.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
31. 1. Kilders, V, &
    2. Caputo, V.

    (2024). A reference-price-informed experiment to assess consumer demand for beef with a reduced carbon footprint. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, forthcoming.
32. 1. Krinsky, I., &
    2. Robb, A. L.

    (1986). On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 715–719.
33. 1. La Nauze, A., &
    2. Myers, E.

    (2023). Do Consumers Acquire Information Optimally? Experimental Evidence from Energy Efficiency (No. w31742). National Bureau of Economic Research.
34. 1. Ladenburg, J., &
    2. Olsen, S. B.

    (2014). Augmenting short cheap talk scripts with a repeated opt-out reminder in choice experiment surveys. Resource and Energy Economics, 37, 39–63.

    OpenUrl
35. 1. Lancsar, E., &
    2. Louviere, J.

    (2008). Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics, 26, 661–677.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
36. 1. Li, X., &
    2. Camerer, C. F.

    (2022). Predictable effects of visual salience in experimental decisions and games. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 137(3), 1849–1900.

    OpenUrl
37. 1. Li, X.,
    2. Jensen, K. L.,
    3. Clark, C. D., &
    4. Lambert, D. M.

    (2016). Consumer willingness to pay for beef grown using climate-friendly production practices. Food Policy, 64, 93–106.

    OpenUrl
38. 1. Lim, K. H., &
    2. Hu, W.

    (2023). Contextual reference price in choice experiments. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 105(4), 1288–1306.

    OpenUrl
39. 1. Lin, W.

    (2023). The effect of product quantity on willingness to pay: A meta-regression analysis of beef valuation studies. Agribusiness, forthcoming.
40. 1. Lusk, J. L., &
    2. Norwood, F. B.

    (2009). An inferred valuation method. Land Economics, 85(3), 500514.

    OpenUrl
41. 1. Matthews, Y.,
    2. Scarpa, R., &
    3. Marsh, D.

    (2017). Using virtual environments to improve the realism of choice experiments: A case study about coastal erosion management. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 81, 193–208.

    OpenUrl
42. 1. Mayer, R. E., &
    2. Moreno, R.

    (2016). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. In Cognitive Load Theory (pp. 43–52). Routledge.
43. 1. McKenzie, D.

    (2015). Tools of the Trade: a joint test of orthogonality when testing for balance. World Bank Blog. https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/impactevaluations/tools-trade-joint-test-orthogonality-when-testing-balance#comments.
44. 1. Menapace, L., &
    2. Raffaelli, R.

    (2020). Unraveling hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 176, 416–430.

    OpenUrl
45. 1. Meyerding, S. G.,
    2. Bauchrowitz, A., &
    3. Lehberger, M.

    (2019). Consumer preferences for beer attributes in Germany: A conjoint and latent class approach. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 47, 229–240.

    OpenUrl
46. 1. Mokas, I.,
    2. Lizin, S.,
    3. Brijs, T.,
    4. Witters, N., &
    5. Malina, R.

    (2021). Can immersive virtual reality increase respondents’ certainty in discrete choice experiments? A comparison with traditional presentation formats. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 109, 102509.

    OpenUrl
47. 1. Ortega, D. L.,
    2. Sun, J., &
    3. Lin, W.

    (2022). Identity labels as an instrument to reduce meat demand and encourage consumption of plant based and cultured meat alternatives in China. Food Policy, 111, 102307.

    OpenUrl
48. 1. Penn, J. M., &
    2. Hu, W.

    (2018). Understanding hypothetical bias: An enhanced metaanalysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 100(4), 1186–1206.

    OpenUrl
49. 1. Penn, J., &
    2. Hu, W.

    (2021). Videos Improve Attention and Cheap Talk in Online Surveys. Frontiers of Economics in China, 16(2).
50. 1. Poe, G. L.,
    2. Giraud, K. L., &
    3. Loomis, J. B.

    (2005). Computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87(2), 353–365.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
51. 1. Raven, J. C.

    (1938). Raven standard progressive matrices. Journal of Cognition and Development.
52. 1. Salomon, G.

    (1979). Media and symbol systems as related to cognition and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71 (2), 131.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
53. 1. Scarpa, R.,
    2. Thiene, M., &
    3. Train, K.

    (2008). Appendix to Utility in WTP space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(314-2016-6062).
54. 1. Shepard, R. N.

    (1967). Recognition memory for words, sentences, and pictures. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6(1), 156–163.

    OpenUrl
55. 1. Shr, Y. H. J.,
    2. Ready, R.,
    3. Orland, B., &
    4. Echols, S.

    (2019). How do visual representations influence survey responses? Evidence from a choice experiment on landscape attributes of green infrastructure. Ecological Economics, 156, 375–386.

    OpenUrl
56. 1. Snowberg, E., &
    2. Yariv, L.

    (2021). Testing the waters: Behavior across participant pools. American Economic Review, 111(2), 687–719.

    OpenUrl
57. 1. Townsend, C., &
    2. Kahn, B. E.

    (2014). The “visual preference heuristic”: The influence of visual versus verbal depiction on assortment processing, perceived variety, and choice overload. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(5), 993–1015.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
58. 1. Train, K., &
    2. Weeks, M.

    (2005). Discrete choice models in preference space and willingness-to-pay space (pp. 1–16). Springer Netherlands.
59. 1. Uggeldahl, K.,
    2. Jacobsen, C.,
    3. Lundhede, T. H., &
    4. Olsen, S. B.

    (2016). Choice certainty in discrete choice experiments: Will eye tracking provide useful measures?. Journal of Choice Modelling, 20, 35–48.

    OpenUrl
60. 1. Van Loo, E. J.,
    2. Caputo, V., &
    3. Lusk, J. L.

    (2020). Consumer preferences for farm-raised meat, lab-grown meat, and plant-based meat alternatives: Does information or brand matter?. Food Policy, 95, 101931.

    OpenUrl
61. 1. Vossler, C. A., &
    2. Watson, S. B.

    (2013). Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: Testing the validity of stated preferences in the field. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 86, 137–147.

    OpenUrl
62. 1. Vossler, C. A.,
    2. Doyon, M., &
    3. Rondeau, D.

    (2012). Truth in consequentiality: theory and field evidence on discrete choice experiments. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 4(4), 145–171.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
63. 1. Wei, X., &
    2. Khachatryan, H.

    (2023). How consequential is policy consequentiality? Evidence from online discrete choice experiment with ornamental plants. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 107, 102122.

    OpenUrl
64. 1. Xie, L.,
    2. Adamowicz, W.,
    3. Kecinski, M., &
    4. Fooks, J. R.

    (2022). Using economic experiments to assess the validity of stated preference contingent behavior responses. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 114, 102659.

    OpenUrl
65. 1. Yang, Y., &
    2. Hobbs, J. E.

    (2020). The power of stories: Narratives and information framing effects in science communication. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 102(4), 1271–1296.

    OpenUrl
66. 1. Zhao, Q.,
    2. Wang, X., &
    3. Rozelle, S.

    (2019). Better cognition, better school performance? Evidence from primary schools in China. China Economic Review, 55, 199–217.

    OpenUrl
67. 1. Zhu, W. B.,
    2. Chen, Y. F.,
    3. Jing, Z. H. A. O., &
    4. Wu, B. B.

    (2021). Impacts of household income on beef at-home consumption: Evidence from urban China. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 20(6), 1701–1715.

    OpenUrl