An Inferred Valuation Method

By Jayson L. Lusk, F. Norwood. Land Economics, 2009

129 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, General Decision Sciences, Safety Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7a392c7bd0bdadb5cd204750aa0517b7db34cefe

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

1. Michiel C. J. Bliemer
2. John M. Rose
3. Emily Lancsar
4. Milad Haghani
5. Harmen Oppewal
6. N. Olynk
7. G. Tonsor
8. R. Nayga

In General Decision Sciences

1. Michiel C. J. Bliemer
2. John M. Rose
3. Emily Lancsar
4. Milad Haghani
5. Harmen Oppewal
6. G. Tonsor
7. N. Olynk
8. C. Wolf

In Safety Research

1. N. Olynk
2. Emily Lancsar
3. M. Vardhan
4. J. Kerr
5. Jackson Loomis
6. John M. Rose
7. R. Teuber
8. Rohit Jindal

Citations in the corpus

• Consumer Willingness to Pay for Livestock Credence Attribute Claim Verification (2010, methodology): “Consistent with Lusk and Norwood (2009a), it is likely that the indirect WTP estimates, for the case in which evidence of social desirability bias can be found, are a more accurate reflection of people’s actual WTP than the direct questioning WTP estimates.”
• Consumers' and producers' expectations towards geographical indications Empirical evidence for a German case study (2011, background): “In hypothetical settings, researchers typically worry about two possible biases, the social desirability bias and the hypothetical bias (Lusk and Norwood, 2009; Murphy and Stevens, 2004).”
• 2013WAEA Keynote Address: Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys (2014, methodology): “One approach for reducing social desirability bias and cognitive dissonance is called “inferred valuation,” as it asks respondents what they think others would pay for the good rather than asking what they themselves would pay (Lusk and Norwood, 2009; Norwood and Lusk, 2011).”
• Revisiting Cheap Talk with New Evidence from a Field Experiment (2011, background): “Possible reasons could be due to strategic manipulation (Carson and Groves, 2007), uncertainty (Johannesson et al., 1999), or social desirability (Lusk and Norwood, 2009) on the part of the respondents.”
• Prosocial behavior and incentives: Evidence from field experiments in rural Mexico and Tanzania (2012, methodology): “In the choice experiment, to reduce the effects of social desirability bias we followed Lusk and Norwood (2009) in using inferred valuation, asking respondents whether they thought their neighbor would be willing to engage in communal tasks under various levels and types of reward.”
• Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods (2021, methodology): “A pioneering application of a closely related methodology in CEs consists of the studies of Lusk and Norwood (2009a) and Carlsson et al. (2010), who used a third-party (indirect) approach also known as the inferred valuation method (Lusk and Norwood, 2009b) to reduce HB, though neither makes any…”