Using Choice Experiments to Value Non-Market Goods and Services: Evidence from Field Experiments

By John A. List, P. Sinha, M. Taylor. 2006

232 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b7f0a443c4de3667939accf2ffefb3b6d83203e7

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 Safety Research

Citations in the corpus

Whatever the customer wants, the customer gets? Exploring the gap between consumer preferences and default electricity products in Germany (2013, background): “…in mind that the answers to questions involving environmental issues can be subject to social desirability biases (Diekmann, 2006) and that there is a specialized stream of literature about the gap between hypothetical and real WTP (see for example Ladenburg and Olsen, 2010; List et al., 2006).”
Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: Evidence from an empirical study (2008, background): “accordingly improve the reliability of value estimates obtained in CE [20,23,27,46, 51 ].”
Conformity and the Demand for Environmental Goods (2010, methodology): “In any case, in order to reduce the probability of a hypothetical bias, we followed Carlsson et al. (2005) and List et al. (2005) and used a cheap-talk script.”
Using Respondent Uncertainty to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in a Stated Choice Experiment (2010, background): “Similarly, List, Sinha, and Taylor (2006) found that the probability of buying a sports trading card was overstated in hypothetical choices, but that marginal WTP for improvements in card quality were similar in the hypothetical and real treatments.”
Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys (2014, methodology): “List et al. (2006) find that CT reduces hypothetical bias but also seems to induce a decrease in the internal consistency of respondents’ preferences.”
Testing the Effectiveness of Certainty Scales, Cheap Talk, and Dissonance-Minimization in Reducing Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies (2009, methodology): “Finally, List et al. (2006), using a shorter but similar script to Cummings and Taylor’s in a choice study conducted at a sports card show, found that cheap talk removed bias for both experienced (dealers) and inexperienced (nondealers) traders.8 Importantly, however, they found that subjects in…”