Explaining Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values: Further Investigation Using Meta-Analysis

By Joseph M. Little, R. Berrens. 2004

271 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bc196e161177ef95b042c48ccfd4154ec279f22e

How researchers see this paper

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

1. S. B. Olsen
2. Jackson Loomis
3. N. Hanley
4. Roy Brouwer
5. Mark Morrison
6. R. Johnston
7. P. Champ
8. Thomas Brown

Citations in the corpus

• Handling respondent uncertainty in Choice Experiments: Evaluating recoding approaches against explicit modelling of uncertainty (2009, result): “This result is in accordance with findings from the CV literature (Little and Berrens 2004; Blumenschein et al. 2008).”
• Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies (2017, background): “The standards for comparison may include experimental research (List and Gallet 2001; Little and Berrens 2004; Murphy, Stevens, and Weatherhead 2005) and voting comparison studies (Vossler et al. 2003; Vossler and Kerkvliet 2003; Johnston 2006; Vossler and Watson 2013).”
• Testing the Effectiveness of Certainty Scales, Cheap Talk, and Dissonance-Minimization in Reducing Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies (2009, background): “contingent to actual willingness to pay, and was recently summarized in meta-analyses by Little and Berrens (2004 ) a ndMurphy et al. (2005a).”
• Economic Valuation of Environmental Damages due to the Prestige Oil Spill in Spain (2009, background): “Little and Berrens (2004) recent valuation meta-analysis study also found little influence of the cheap talk protocol on WTP. Table 5 Mean WTP estimates (2006 e) Mean 95% Confidence interval WTP-logit (entire sample) 40.51 33.78–47.23 WTP-logit (certainty = 1) 7.57 0.98–14.16 WTP-logit (certainty =…”
• Consequentiality: A Theoretical and Experimental Exploration of a Single Binary Choice (2014, background): “…bias typically defined as the difference between purely hypothetical and actual statements related to a good’s value (see, e.g., Cummings, Harrison, and Rutström 1995; Cummings, Elliot, and Murphy 1997; List and Gallet 2001; Little and Berrens 2004; Murphy et al. 2005; Harrison 2006; Loomis 2011).”
• A Comparison of Approaches to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias (2009, background): “Little and Berrens (2003) found negative significant coefficient estimates on the certainty correction variables, suggesting that a certainty correction reduces hypothetical bias. The use of a cheap talk script was also found to reduce hypothetical bias in one of the four models estimated in this me”
• 2013WAEA Keynote Address: Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys (2014, methodology): “With respect to hypothetical bias, List and Gallet (2001, p. 246) found a median calibration factor of 3 (hypothetical payment divided by actual payment), Little and Berrens (2004, p. 5) found a median calibration factor of 3.13 in their expanded dataset, while Murphy et al. (2005), found a raw medi”
• Eliciting Willingness to Pay without Bias using Follow-up Certainty Statements: Comparisons between Probably/Definitely and a 10-point Certainty Scale (2009, unknown): “Ex ante cheap talk explicitly informs respondents that in similar hypothetical situations people tend to say yes more than they would in real situations and exhorts respondents to state what they would actually do. Cummings and Taylor (1999) find that cheap talk works well for their four environment”
• Real consequences matter: Why hypothetical biases in the valuation of time persist even in controlled lab experiments (2019, result): “result that SP-based values tend to be lower than RP-based values (unlike in most studies that aim at eliciting valuations for public goods, see the above-mentioned meta-analyses by List and Gallet (2001); Little et al. (2004); Murphy et al. (2005a)). Several possible reasons for the divergence betw”
• Using Respondent Uncertainty to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in a Stated Choice Experiment (2010, methodology): “Little and Berrens (2004) expanded List and Gallet’s meta-analysis by adding more studies and including more variables that measured methodological differences among studies.”