A Comparison of Approaches to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias

By P. Champ, Rebecca Moore, R. Bishop. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 2009

130 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

2013WAEA Keynote Address: Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys (2014, background): “The recommendation from Champ, Moore, and Bishop (2009) to use sensitivity analysis in order to report WTP at several reasonable cutoff levels of uncertainty (e.g., 6–9 on their ten point scale) is helpful when performing a benefit-cost or policy analysis.”
Understanding Hypothetical Bias: An Enhanced Meta‐Analysis (2018, background): “Loomis et al. (1996) had three separate samples that generated four observations in our metaanalysis database (two within-sample and two between-sample comparisons) based on 5 For Champ et al. (2009), the Turnbull calibration factors are between 10.1% and 24.5% different than the original ratios.”
Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies (2017, background): “…attitudes, knowledge, or experience; acceptance and understanding of scenarios; uses of the goods in question; certainty in responses (see review in Champ, Moore, and Bishop 2009), emotions (Araña and León 2008; Araña, León, and Hanemann 2008), and truth-telling oaths ( Jacquemet et al. 2013,…”