Skip to Main Content
Due to a lapse in federal funding, this USDA website will not be actively updated. Once funding has been reestablished, online operations will continue.
A comparison of cheap talk and alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuationAuthor(s): Mihail Samnaliev; Thomas Stevens; Thomas More
Source: Working Paper No. 2003-11. University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Resource Economics: Amherst, MA.
Publication Series: Scientific Journal (JRNL)
Station: Northeastern Research Station
PDF: View PDF (1.34 MB)
DescriptionA field test of cheap talk and two types of certainty calibration in contingent valuation of public lands indicated that cheap talk does not reduce WTP estimates. Use of a ten point certainty calibration scale reduces WTP estimates by about half. However, adjusting for uncertainty using a 'Not Sure' option does not reduce WTP estimates but increases the variance in responses. There may be a conceptual difference between these two ways of accounting for respondents' uncertainty, which may suggest why they provide different WTP value estimates and variances.
- Check the Northern Research Station web site to request a printed copy of this publication.
- Our on-line publications are scanned and captured using Adobe Acrobat.
- During the capture process some typographical errors may occur.
- Please contact Sharon Hobrla, firstname.lastname@example.org if you notice any errors which make this publication unusable.
- We recommend that you also print this page and attach it to the printout of the article, to retain the full citation information.
- This article was written and prepared by U.S. Government employees on official time, and is therefore in the public domain.
CitationSamnaliev, Mihail; Stevens, Thomas; More, Thomas. 2003. A comparison of cheap talk and alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation. Working Paper No. 2003-11. University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Resource Economics: Amherst, MA.
KeywordsCVM, Hypothetical bias, Cheap talk, Certainty Calibration
- A comparison of approaches to mitigate hypothetical bias
- Testing the effectiveness of certainty scales, cheap talk, and dissonance-minimization in reducing hypothetical bias in contingent valuation studies
- Accounting for respondent uncertainty to improve willingness-to-pay estimates
XML: View XML