Skip to Main Content
U.S. Forest Service
Caring for the land and serving people

United States Department of Agriculture

Home > Search > Publication Information

  1. Share via EmailShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on Twitter
    Dislike this pubLike this pub


    Stated preference methods such as contingent valuation and choice modeling are subject to various biases that may lead to differences between actual and hypothetical willingness to pay. Cheap talk, follow-up certainty scales, and dissonance minimization are three techniques for reducing this hypothetical bias. Cheap talk and certainty scales have received considerable attention in the literature, but dissonance minimization has not previously been experimentally tested. Using a four-way split sample design involving over 600 subjects, results from an actual referendum on provision of a quasi-public good were compared with three similar but contingent referenda employing the three bias-reducing techniques. Hypothetical bias was again present. Certainty scales, when properly calibrated, and dissonance minimization were found to be most effective in reducing the bias.

    Publication Notes

    • You may send email to 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.


    Morrison, Mark; Brown, Thomas C. 2009. Testing the effectiveness of certainty scales, cheap talk, and dissonance-minimization in reducing hypothetical bias in contingent valuation studies. Environmental and Resource Economics. 44(3): 307-326.


    contingent valuation, hypothetical bias, cheap talk, certainty scales, dissonance

    Related Search

    XML: View XML
Show More
Show Fewer
Jump to Top of Page