Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments

By Fredrik Carlsson, P. Frykblom, Carl Johan Lagerkvist. 2005

355 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, General Decision Sciences, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a7fbbebf11fc824df3ab3c4c70a9fcca2b9252c3

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

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Citations in the corpus

Conformity and the Demand for Environmental Goods (2010, methodology): “In order to reduce the probability of a hypothetical bias, we followed Carlsson et al. (2005) and used a cheap-talk script.”
Swedish Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare and Biotech: A Choice Experiment (2006, methodology): “Attributes and levels used in the CE (besides castration) were selected due to policy relevance and results from previous Swedish studies on factors important in consumer valuation of pork meat (Carlsson et al., 2005a; Liljenstolpe, 2003).”
European consumer preferences for beef with nutrition and health claims: A multi-country investigation using discrete choice experiments (2014, methodology): “Previous research has shown that cheap talk effectively lowers hypothetical bias for consumers (Carlsson et al., 2005; Cummings and Taylor, 1999; Lusk, 2002; Silva et al., 2011; Tonsor and Shupp, 2011). The cheap talk script used in this study (see Appendix A) was based on the cheap talk scripts fro”
Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare: mobile abattoirs versus transportation to slaughter (2007, methodology): “In order to reduce the probability of any hypothetical bias, we follow Carlsson et al. (2005) and use a ‘cheap-talk’ script.”
Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys (2014, methodology): “Furthermore, this practice has been widely adopted in CE surveys even though the number of studies testing CT in CE is much lower and shows mixed results (Carlsson et al. 2005; Kjær et al. 2005; Ladenburg et al. 2010; List et al. 2006 and Özdemir et al. 2009).”
Understanding Hypothetical Bias: An Enhanced Meta‐Analysis (2018, background): “This precludes those who only use stated preference methods, especially those that focus on HB mitigation techniques such as Carlsson et al. (2005), Bedate et al. (2009), or Carlsson et al. (2013).”
Revisiting Cheap Talk with New Evidence from a Field Experiment (2011, background): “In contrast, Aadland and Caplan (2003) and Carlsson, Frykblom, and Lagerkvist (2005) found that cheap talk can reduce hypothetical bias.”