Is hypothetical bias universal? Validating contingent valuation responses using a binding public referendum
By R. Johnston. 2006
145 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, General Decision Sciences
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2b16332f4ba9b119cf692ea12a6203987b14d4cc
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Economics and Econometrics
- Jackson Loomis
- N. Hanley
- Riccardo Scarpa
- Jayson L. Lusk
- S. B. Olsen
- Kevin J. Boyle
- Roy Brouwer
- Jeffrey Bennett
In General Decision Sciences
- Jackson Loomis
- N. Hanley
- Riccardo Scarpa
- F. Norwood
- Kevin J. Boyle
- Jayson L. Lusk
- Jeffrey Bennett
- Jae Bong Chang
Citations in the corpus
- How Closely Do Hypothetical Surveys and Laboratory Experiments Predict Field Behavior (2009, background): “A few studies have compared hypothetical contingent valuation survey responses to real field public referenda (e.g., Johnston 2006; Vossler and Kerkvliet 2003; Vossler et al. 2003).”
- Bridging the gap between the field and the lab: Environmental goods, policy maker input, and consequentiality (2009, background): “The majority of criterion validity studies involve laboratory or field experiments, in large part due to the difficulty of having an appropriate criterion measure with which to compare field surveys, and the paucity of appropriate naturally-occurring data [11, 21].”
- Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies (2017, background): “…and it is unclear how extant experimental payments compare to a “true” (or criterion) value.75 Moreover, research using actual voting behavior as the criterion for comparison suggests that hypothetical bias is not universal (Vossler and Kerkvliet 2003; Johnston 2006; Vossler and Watson 2013).”
- 2013WAEA Keynote Address: Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys (2014, background): “, 1996), including comparisons to real referenda (Vossler and Kerkvliet, 2003; Johnston, 2006; Vossler and Watson, 2013).”
- Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: Testing the validity of stated preferences in the field (2012, unknown): “(2004) and Johnston (2006), past studies utilizing comparisons with public referenda have largely relied on the intended votes of respondents who were (made) aware of the upcoming referendum.”