Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Preferences elicited in hypothetical settings have recently come underscrutiny, causing estimates from the contingent valuation method to bechallenged due to perceived ``hypothetical bias.'' Given that the receivedliterature derives value estimates using heterogeneous experimentaltechniques, understanding the effects of important design parameters onthe magnitude of hypothetical bias is invaluable. In this paper, we addressthis issue statistically by using a meta-analysis to examine data from 29experimental studies. Our empirical findings suggest that on averagesubjects overstate their preferences by a factor of about 3 in hypotheticalsettings, and that the degree of over-revelation is influenced by thedistinction between willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept, publicversus private goods, and several elicitation methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Balistreri, E., G. McClelland, G. Poe and W. Schulze (1998), Can Hypothetical Questions Reveal True Values? A Laboratory Comparison of Dichotomous Choice and Open-Ended Contingent Values with Auction Values. Cornell University, working paper, WP 97-15.

  • Bishop, R. and T. Heberlein (1979), ‘Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61, 926–930.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, R. (1986), ‘Assessing the Validity of Contingent Valuations: Three Field Experiments’, Science of the Total Environment 56, 434–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, R. (1990), ‘The Contingent Valuation Method’, in R. L. Johnson and G. V. Johnson, eds., Economic Valuation of Natural Resources. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 81–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, R., T. Heberlein and M. J. Kealy (1983), ‘Contingent Valuation of Environmental Assets: Comparisons with a Simulated Market’, Natural Resources Journal 23, 619–633.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn, M., G. Harrison and E. E. Ruström (1994), ‘Statistical Bias Functions and Informative Hypothetical Surveys’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76, 1084–1088.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, P. (1972), ‘Estimating Demand for Public Goods: An Experiment’, Europeawn Economic Review 3(2), 111–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyce, R., G. McClelland, T. Brown, G. Peterson and W. Schulze (1992), ‘An Experimental Examination of Intrinsic Values as a Source of the WTA-WTP Disparity’, American Economic Review 82(5), 1366–1373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brookshire, D. and D. Coursey (1987), ‘Measuring the Value of a Public Good: An Empirical Comparison of Elicitation Procedures’, American Economic Review 77(4): 554–566.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T., P. Champ, R. Bishop and D. McCollum (1996), ‘Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good?’, Land Economics 72(2), 152–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coursey, D., J. Hovis and W. Schulze (1987), ‘The Disparity between Willingness to Accept and Willingness to Pay Measures of Value’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 102, 679–690.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, R., D. Brookshire and W. Schulze, eds. (1986), Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, R., G. Harrison and E. E. Rutström (1995), ‘Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive Compatible?’, American Economic Review 85, 260–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, R., S. Elliot, G. Harrison and J. Murphy (1997), ‘Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible?’, Journal of Political Economy 105(3), 609–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, P. and J. Hausman (1994), ‘Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 8, 45–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickie, M., A. Fisher and S. Gerking (1987), ‘Market Transactions and Hypothetical Demand Data: A Comparative Study’, Journal of American Statistical Association 82, 69–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Espey, M. (1998), ‘Gasoline Demand Revisited: An International Meta-Analysis of Elasticities’, Energy Economics 20, 273–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, V., I. Bateman and D. Harley (1997), ‘Real and Hypothetical Willingness to Pay for Environmental Preservation: A Non-Experimental Comparison’, Journal of Agricultural Economics 48(2), 123–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, J., J. Shogren; D. Hayes and J. Kliebenstein (1998), ‘CVM-X: Calibrating Contingent Values with Experimental AuctionMarkets’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80, 455–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frykblom, P. (1997), ‘Hypothetical Question Modes and Real Willingness to Pay’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 34, 275–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frykblom, P. (2000), ‘Willingness to Pay and the Choice of Question Format: Experimental Results’, Applied Economics Letters 7, 665–667.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grether, D. and C. Plott (1979), ‘Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon’, American Economic Review 69(1), 623–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofler, R. and J. A. List (2000), Valuation on the Frontier: Calibrating Actual and Hypothetical Statements. University of Arizona, working paper.

  • Irwin, J., G. McClelland and W. Schulze (1992), ‘Hypothetical and Real Consequences in Experimental Auctions for Insurance Against Low Probability Risks’, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 5, 107–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeppessen, T., J. A. List and H. Folmer (2001), ‘Environmental Regulations and New Plant Location Decisions: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis’, Journal of Regional Science, forthcoming.

  • Johannesson, M., B. Liljas and P. O. Johansson (1998), ‘An Experimental Comparison of Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions and Real Purchase Decisions’, Applied Economics 30, 643–647.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kealy, M., J. Dovidio and M. Rockel (1988), ‘Accuracy in Valuation is a Matter of Degree’, Land Economics 64, 158–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kealy, M., J. Montgomery and J. Dovidio (1990), ‘Reliability and Predictive Validity of Contingent Values: Does the Nature of the Good Matter?’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 19, 244–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • List, J. A. (2001), ‘Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards’, American Economic Review, forthcoming.

  • List, J. A. and J. Shogren (1998a), ‘Calibration of the Difference between Actual and Hypothetical Valuations in a Field Experiment’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 37(2), 193–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • List, J. A. and J. Shogren (1998b), ‘The Deadweight Loss of Christmas: Comment’, American Economic Review 88(5), 1350–1355.

    Google Scholar 

  • List, J. A. and J. Shogren (1999), ‘Calibration of Willingness-to-Accept’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, forthcoming.

  • Loomis, J., T. Brown, T. Lucero and G. Peterson (1996), ‘Improving Validity Experiments of Contingent Valuation Methods: Results of Efforts to Reduce the Disparity of Hypothetical and Actual Willingness to Pay’, Land Economics 72(4), 450–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomis, J., T. Brown, T. Lucero and G. Peterson (1997), ‘Evaluating the Validity of the Dichotomous Choice Question Format in Contingent Valuation’, Environmental and Resources Economics 10, 109–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, G., W. Schulze and D. Coursey (1993), ‘Insurance for Low-Probability Hazards: A Biomodal Response to Unlikely Events’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7, 95–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Navrud, S. (1992), ‘Willingness to Pay for Preservation of Species — An Experiment with Actual Payments’, in S. Navrud, ed., Pricing the European Environment. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press; distributed by Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 231–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neill, H., R. Cummings, P. Ganderton, G. Harrison and T. McGuckin (1994), ‘Hypothetical Surveys and Real Economic Commitments’, Land Economics 70(2): 145–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (1994), ‘Natural Resource Damage Assessment: Proposed Rules’, Federal Register, 4 May 59, 23098–23111.

  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (1996), ‘Natural Resource Damage Assessment: Final Rules’, Federal Register, 5 January 61, 439.

  • Randall, A. (1996), ‘Calibration of CV Responses: Discussion’, in D. Bjornstad and J. Kahn, eds., The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources. London: Edgar Elgar, pp. 198–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seip, K. and J. Strand (1992), ‘Willingness to Pay for Environmental Goods in Norway: A Contingent Valuation Study with Real Payment’, Environmental and Resource Economics 2, 91–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinden, J. A. (1988), ‘Empirical Tests of Hypothetical Biases in Consumers' Surplus Surveys’, Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics (August & December) 32 (2&3), 98–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V. K. and C. Mansfield (1998), ‘Buying Time: Real and Hypothetical Offers’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36, 209–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, M., S. Swallow and C. Miller (1998), ‘Valuting Water Quality Monitoring: A Contingent Valuation Experiment Involving Hypothetical and Real Payments’, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 27, 28–42.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Maryland, College, Park, MD, 85721, USA

    John A. List

  2. California State University at Sacramento, Sacramento, CA, 95819-6016, USA

    Craig A. Gallet

Authors
  1. John A. List
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Craig A. Gallet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Craig A. Gallet.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

List, J.A., Gallet, C.A. What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?. Environmental and Resource Economics 20, 241–254 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012791822804

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012791822804

Search

Navigation