Eliciting Willingness to Pay Without Bias

Evidence from a Field Experiment

Datos Bibliográficos

ID9715947
AutoresKaren Blumenschein (University of Kentucky), Glenn C Blomquist (University of Kentucky), Magnus Johannesson (0000-0001-8759-6393, Stockholm School of Economics), Nancy Horn (American Pharmacy Services Corporation), Patricia Freeman (0000-0002-9298-3299, University of Kentucky and American Pharmacy Services Corporation), Patricia R Freeman (0000-0002-4749-6563, University of Kentucky)
Año2008
Volumen118
Número525
Páginas114-137
Fecha de publicación2008-01-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaThe Economic Journal (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0013-0133 • E-ISSN: 1468-0297
EditorialOxford University Press (OUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1111/j.1468-0297.2007.02106.x
OpenAlexW1512083895
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas49
Referencias citadas50

Concern exists that hypothetical willingness to pay questions overestimate real willingness to pay. In a field experiment, we compare two methods of removing hypothetical bias, a cheap talk approach and a certainty approach, with real purchases. We find evidence of hypothetical bias for unadulterated contingent valuation. Contingent valuation with certainty statements removes the hypothetical bias, but the cheap talk approach has no significant impact. Our findings suggest that willingness to pay can be accurately estimated by adding a simple follow-up question about the certainty of responses and that cheap talk is not a generally effective approach. Copyright 2008 The Author(s). Journal compilation Royal Economic Society 2008

Economics · Field (mathematics · Microeconomics · Willingness to pay · Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics · Economic and Environmental Valuation · Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies · Mathematics