Skip to Main Content
A comparison of approaches to mitigate hypothetical biasAuthor(s): Patricia A. Champ; Rebecca Moore; Richard C. Bishop
Source: Agricultural and Resource Economics Review. 38(2): 166-180.
Publication Series: Miscellaneous Publication
PDF: View PDF (251.9 KB)
DescriptionWe compare two approaches to mitigating hypothetical bias. The study design includes three treatments: an actual payment treatment, a contingent valuation (CV) treatment with a followup certainty question, and a CV treatment with a cheap talk script. Our results suggest that both the follow-up certainty treatment and the cheap talk treatment produce willingness-to-pay (WTP) estimates consistent with the actual payment treatment. However, the follow-up certainty treatment provides response distributions at all offer amounts that are statistically similar to the actual payment treatment, while the cheap talk treatment provides similar responses only at some offer amounts. Furthermore, the cheap talk treatment is effective only for inexperienced individuals. We conclude that the follow-up certainty approach is more consistent than the cheap talk approach for eliminating hypothetical bias.
- You may send email to firstname.lastname@example.org to request a hard copy of this publication.
- (Please specify exactly which publication you are requesting and your mailing address.)
CitationChamp, Patricia A.; Moore, Rebecca; Bishop, Richard C. 2009. A comparison of approaches to mitigate hypothetical bias. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review. 38(2): 166-180.
Keywordscontingent valuation, hypothetical bias, follow-up certainty, cheap talk, nonmarket valuation
- Testing the effectiveness of certainty scales, cheap talk, and dissonance-minimization in reducing hypothetical bias in contingent valuation studies
- Field testing existence values for riparian ecosystems
- Using respondent uncertainty to mitigate hypothetical bias in a stated choice experiment
XML: View XML