Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation

By Thomas Brown, I. Ajzen, D. Hrubes. 2003

158 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, General Decision Sciences

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e8e87dd8080416fba996011c829d01fd6b89b1bd

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

Citations in the corpus

Revisiting Cheap Talk with New Evidence from a Field Experiment (2011, background): “Brown, Ajzen, and Hrubes (2003), using Cummings and Taylor’s script, found that a long cheap talk script is successful in a higher payment context.”
Explaining the Discrepancy between Intentions and Actions: The Case of Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation (2004, result): “The proposition was identical to one used in a previous investigation (Brown et al., 2003).”
Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods (2021, background): “…to depend on factors such as the length of the script (Aadland and Caplan, 2003; Aadland and Caplan, 2006), the description of (the direction of) the bias (Aadland and Caplan, 2006), subject characteristics (List, 2001), payment level (Bateman et al., 2009) and payment vehicle (Brown et al., 2003).”
Testing the Effectiveness of Certainty Scales, Cheap Talk, and Dissonance-Minimization in Reducing Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies (2009, background): “Brown et al. (2003), in another public good referendum study with student subjects, tested the Cummings and Taylor (1999) cheap talk script at several bid levels.”
Explaining Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values: Further Investigation Using Meta-Analysis (2004, background): “, (2003); Champ and Bishop, (2001); Poe et al. (2002); Bhatia and Fox-Rushby, (2003); Paradiso and Trisorio, (2001); Aadland and Caplan, (2003); Brown et al.”
2013WAEA Keynote Address: Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys (2014, background): “Brown et al. (1996) first suggested that respondents confronted with this question face a cognitive dissonance between two objectives, especially at high bid amounts: (a) say “No,” they would not pay that high amount, which creates the potential worry”
Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys (2014, background): “In this relation Murphy et al. (2005b), Brown et al. (2003) and Lusk and Schroeder (2004) find that the typical overstatement of hypothetical WTP might apply to the entire bid range provided in two CVM studies and a CE study, respectively.”
Experimental Evidence on Alternative Environmental Valuation Methods (2006, unknown): “Taylor (1999), List (2001), Aadland and Caplan (2003), Brown et al. (2003) and Murphy et al. (2003).”
Cheap Talk Reconsidered: New Evidence From CVM (2006, unknown): “Similarly, Brown et al. (2003) report that CT’s cheap talk script is effective at high referendum bid levels but ineffective at low bid levels.”
Contingent Valuation, Hypothetical Bias, and Experimental Economics (2004, background): “Brown, Ajzen, and Hrubes (2003) found that the long cheap talk script was successful, but only for high payment amounts.”
Willingness to pay for a Green Energy program: A comparison of ex-ante and ex-post hypothetical bias mitigation approaches (2007, unknown): “This result is consistent with Brown et al. (2003) who find that cheap talk is most effective at high bids.”
A Comparison of Approaches to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias (2009, background): “We do not have a “treatment-free” contingent donation group, but such an effect was not found in Champ et al. (1997). Likewise, the significantly higher yes rate for the certainty treatment relative to the actual donation treatment is consistent with numerous other studies that compared hypothetical”
The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions (2020, background): “This hypothetical bias arises because the beliefs that are readily accessible in memory when intentions are assessed differ substantially from the beliefs that are readily accessible in the behavioral context (see Brown, Ajzen, & Hrubes, 2003).”
Eliciting Willingness to Pay Without Bias: Evidence from a Field Experiment (2008, unknown): “Brown et al. (2003), using a similar design as Cummings and Taylor, found that the effectiveness of the cheap talk approach varied with the price level.”