Skip to Main Content
Using respondent uncertainty to mitigate hypothetical bias in a stated choice experimentAuthor(s): Richard C. Ready; Patricia A. Champ; Jennifer L. Lawton
Source: Land Economics. 86(2): 363-381.
Publication Series: Miscellaneous Publication
PDF: View PDF (501.18 KB)
DescriptionIn a choice experiment study, willingness to pay for a public good estimated from hypothetical choices was three times as large as willingness to pay estimated from choices requiring actual payment. This hypothetical bias was related to the stated level of certainty of respondents. We develop protocols to measure respondent certainty in the context of a choice experiment, and to calibrate hypothetical choices using these certainty measures. While both the measurement of respondent certainty and the use of certainty measures to calibrate responses are complicated by the multiple-choice nature of choice experiments, calibration successfully mitigated hypothetical bias in this application.
- 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.)
- 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.
CitationReady, Richard C.; Champ, Patricia A.; Lawton, Jennifer L. 2010. Using respondent uncertainty to mitigate hypothetical bias in a stated choice experiment. Land Economics. 86(2): 363-381.
Keywordsrespondent uncertainty, hypothetical bias, choice experiment study
- Testing the effectiveness of certainty scales, cheap talk, and dissonance-minimization in reducing hypothetical bias in contingent valuation studies
- A comparison of approaches to mitigate hypothetical bias
- Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation
XML: View XML