Using Ex Ante Approaches to Obtain Credible Signals for Value in Contingent Markets: Evidence from the Field

By Craig E. Landry, John A. List. 2007

140 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, General Decision Sciences, Marketing

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e17cf092ae9a59ddfb9612b9f6124a3f4bd2e998

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. S. B. Olsen
2. John M. Rose
3. Riccardo Scarpa
4. R. Nayga
5. Jackson Loomis
6. João Palma
7. Tim Barnard
8. D. Harrison

In General Decision Sciences

1. S. B. Olsen
2. Jackson Loomis
3. John M. Rose
4. Riccardo Scarpa
5. R. Nayga
6. Wuyang Hu
7. J. Penn
8. J. Ladenburg

In Marketing

1. John M. Rose
2. S. B. Olsen
3. Riccardo Scarpa
4. R. Nayga
5. Andrés Silva
6. J. Ladenburg
7. Jackson Loomis
8. João Palma

Citations in the corpus

• Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: Evidence from an empirical study (2008, background): “The effect of information concerning budget/substitution reminders [13,43,53,62,76], quality of the environmental resource [16,37,72], and cheap talk [22,27,44, 46 ,48] are amongst the subjects that have been examined.”
• Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: Testing the validity of stated preferences in the field (2012, background): “2 “advisory” referenda for publicly-provided private goods (Carson et al., 2004; Landry and List, 2007) and public goods (Vossler and Evans, 2009).”
• Revisiting Cheap Talk with New Evidence from a Field Experiment (2011, background): “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).”
• What are the consequences of consequentiality (2009, methodology): “Landry and List (2007) also undertake a field experiment, in this case with four treatments: Hypothetical, Cheap Talk, Consequential, and Real.”
• Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay (2014, background): “The inclusion of cheap talk scripts, such as those developed by Cummings and Taylor (1999), has also been found to reduce hypothetical bias (Landry and List, 2007; Mozumder and Berrens, 2007).”
• 2013WAEA Keynote Address: Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys (2014, background): “Cummings and Taylor found this approach successful in the lab (to obtain hypothetical WTP equal to actual) as have some others (Aadland and Caplan, 2003; Landry and List, 2007).”
• Understanding Hypothetical Bias: An Enhanced Meta‐Analysis (2018, methodology): “This enables us to incorporate more studies into the sample that did not specifically provide WTP, but did report proportions of responses that indicated yes to the valuation question from dichotomous choice or referenda elicitations, such as Landry and List (2007) and Ehmke et al. (2008).”