(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
Hypothetical Bias Mitigation Techniques in Choice Experiments: Do Cheap Talk and Honesty Priming Effects Fade with Repeated Choices?
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jaerec/doi10.1086-691593.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hypothetical Bias Mitigation Techniques in Choice Experiments: Do Cheap Talk and Honesty Priming Effects Fade with Repeated Choices?

Author

Listed:
  • Gregory Howard
  • Brian E. Roe
  • Erik C. Nisbet
  • Jay F. Martin

Abstract

We design a choice experiment comparing policies that reduce agricultural nutrient pollution and harmful algal blooms in Lake Erie and administer it to Ohio residents using an online survey panel. We compare two treatments that have been found to mitigate hypothetical bias, cheap talk and honesty priming, with a neutral priming control. We find greater sensitivity to price among respondents during choices made immediately following the cheap talk intervention. As additional choices are made, the “wedge” between price sensitivity in the control and honesty prime treatments diminishes and eventually loses statistical significance. We find this effect in both our online choice experiments and among respondents to face-to-face choice experiments conducted by de-Magistris, Gracia, and Nayga. Our online implementation of an honesty priming intervention yields no significant change in price sensitivity compared to a control. While de-Magistris et al. implement an honesty priming intervention that fully mitigates hypothetical bias in a face-to-face setting, we show that this effect is also transient, and in later choice exercises we cannot reject the null hypothesis of equality between honesty priming and the control. Our results are robust to multiple specifications and suggest additional work is required to adapt priming interventions for online settings and to extend the effectiveness of popular hypothetical bias mitigation techniques when respondents face multiple choice tasks.

Suggested Citation

  • Gregory Howard & Brian E. Roe & Erik C. Nisbet & Jay F. Martin, 2017. "Hypothetical Bias Mitigation Techniques in Choice Experiments: Do Cheap Talk and Honesty Priming Effects Fade with Repeated Choices?," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 543-573.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jaerec:doi:10.1086/691593
    DOI: 10.1086/691593
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/691593
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/691593
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/691593?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aaron J. Staples & Carson J. Reeling & Nicole J. Olynk Widmar & Jayson L. Lusk, 2020. "Consumer willingness to pay for sustainability attributes in beer: A choice experiment using eco‐labels," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(4), pages 591-612, October.
    2. Cordula Hinkes & Inken Christoph-Schulz, 2020. "No Palm Oil or Certified Sustainable Palm Oil? Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences and the Role of Information," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-26, September.
    3. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    4. Rafaï, Ismaël & Blayac, Thierry & Dubois, Dimitri & Duchêne, Sébastien & Nguyen-Van, Phu & Ventelou, Bruno & Willinger, Marc, 2023. "Stated preferences outperform elicited preferences for predicting reported compliance with COVID-19 prophylactic measures," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    5. Ghesla, Claus & Grieder, Manuel & Schubert, Renate, 2020. "Nudging the poor and the rich – A field study on the distributional effects of green electricity defaults," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    6. Romain Espinosa & Nicolas Treich, 2023. "Eliciting Non-hypothetical Willingness-to-pay for Novel Products: An Application to Cultured Meat," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 85(3), pages 673-706, August.
    7. John C. Whitehead & Alicia Louis Cornicelli & Gregory Howard, 2024. "Total Economic Valuation of Great Lakes Recreational Fisheries: Attribute Non-attendance, Hypothetical Bias and Insensitivity to Scope," Working Papers 24-10, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    8. Jerrod Penn & Wuyang Hu & Hannah J. Penn, 2019. "Support for Solitary Bee Conservation among the Public versus Beekeepers," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 101(5), pages 1386-1400, October.
    9. Sahan T. M. Dissanayake & Andrew G. Meyer, 2021. "Incorporating Beliefs and Experiences into Choice Experiment Analysis: Implications for Policy Recommendations," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 823-848, June.
    10. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    11. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods," Papers 2102.02945, arXiv.org.
    12. Luka Koning & Marianne Junger & Joris Hoof, 2020. "Digital signatures: a tool to prevent and predict dishonesty?," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 19(2), pages 257-285, November.
    13. Kathleen Rodenburg & Taimoor Rizwan & Ruifeng Liu & Julia Christensen Hughes, 2021. "Enhancing the Positive Impact Rating: A New Business School Rating in Support of a Sustainable Future," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-26, June.
    14. Jiang, Qi & Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2022. "Real payment priming to reduce potential hypothetical bias," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    15. Haghani, Milad & Sarvi, Majid, 2019. "Laboratory experimentation and simulation of discrete direction choices: Investigating hypothetical bias, decision-rule effect and external validity based on aggregate prediction measures," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 134-157.
    16. Martin, Inès & Vranken, Liesbet & Ugás, Roberto, 2021. "Farmers’ Preferences to Cultivate Threatened Crop Varieties: Evidence from Peru," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315216, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Mohammed Hussen Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2020. "An analysis of the impacts of tasting experience and peer effects on consumers’ willingness to pay for novel foods," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(4), pages 653-674, October.
    18. Richartz, P. Christoph & Abdulai, Awudu & Kornher, Lukas, 2020. "Attribute Non Attendance and Consumer Preferences for Online Food Products in Germany," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 69(1), March.
    19. Glenk, Klaus & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Colombo, Sergio & Faccioli, Michela, 2024. "Enhancing the face validity of choice experiments: A simple diagnostic check," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    20. Pengfei Liu & Xiaohui Tian, 2021. "Downward Hypothetical Bias in the Willingness to Accept Measure for Private Goods: Evidence from a Field Experiment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(5), pages 1679-1699, October.
    21. Liebe, Ulf & Glenk, Klaus & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie & Spiller, Achim, 2019. "A web survey application of real choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 33(C).
    22. Di Fang & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Grant H. West & Claudia Bazzani & Wei Yang & Benjamin C. Lok & Charles E. Levy & Heather A. Snell, 2021. "On the Use of Virtual Reality in Mitigating Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(1), pages 142-161, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jaerec:doi:10.1086/691593. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JAERE .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.