A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation

By James J. Murphy, Paul G. Allen, Thomas Stevens, Darryl A. Weatherhead. 2005

1,252 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, General Decision Sciences

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/796c338f7ad0c4ed84644e4135e86b6574e5c29d

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

In General Decision Sciences

Citations in the corpus

Testing the Effectiveness of Certainty Scales, Cheap Talk, and Dissonance-Minimization in Reducing Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies (2009, methodology): “When Murphy et al. (2005a) excluded from the sample the ratios resulting from bias-reducing methods, the mean ratio rose to 5.”
How to value biodiversity in environmental management (2015, background): “(2001), Navrud (2001), Cardoso de Mendonç a et al.”
Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: a meta-analysis of the hypothetical bias (2019, background): “Existing meta-analyses (Carson et al. 1996; List and Gallet 2001; Murphy et al. 2005) include public goods and do not distinguish among different types of private goods.”
Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies (2017, background): “Some individuals view hypothetical bias as the overarching validity issue facing SP methods; a long-standing concern has been that SP studies overestimate values (List and Gallet 2001; Little and Berrens 2004; Murphy et al. 2005a).”
Preference Elicitation under Oath (2010, background): “Contrary to most studies run in North America (see Murphy et al., 2005, for a survey) we do not observe a bias between the IV-Baseline and IV-Incentives treatments.”
Revisiting Cheap Talk with New Evidence from a Field Experiment (2011, methodology): “Their cheap talk script has been referenced by a number of studies including those by List (2001); Brown, Ajzen, and Hrubes (2003); Murphy et al. (2005) and Landry and List (2007).”
Are We Willing to Pay Enough to `Back the Bid'?: Valuing the Intangible Impacts of London's Bid to Host the 2012 Summer Olympic Games (2008, background): “Lastly, voluntary contributions such as donations may exacerbate hypothetical bias, when compared with compulsory payment mechanisms such as taxes, because of the free-riding associated with actual contributions (Murphy et al., 2005).”
What can we learn from benefit transfer errors? Evidence from 20 years of research on convergent validity (2013, background): “24 [26] assess the importance of “hypothetical bias” in stated preference research by analyzing results from 28 laboratory and field experiments on the difference between hypothetical statements of value and actual statements of value based on binding commitments.”
A Meta-Analysis of Geographical Indication Food Valuation Studies: What Drives the Premium for Origin-Based Labels? (2013, background): “…studies and seventy-six observations (WTP for GM foods), Richardson and Loomis (2009) compiled thirty-one studies and sixty-seven observations (WTP for endangered species), and Murphy et al. (2005) compiled twentyeight studies and eighty-three observations (hypothetical bias in stated preferences).”
Income Elasticities and Global Values of a Statistical Life (2017, methodology): “CFOI values to a value derived from stated preference studies because revealed preference studies avoid hypothetical bias (Murphy et al., 2005).”