A penny for your thoughts: Inducing truth-telling in stated preference elicitation

Barrage, Lint; Lee, Min Sok

doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2009.11.006

Cited by 33 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, the choice architecture surrounding real-world and hypothetical choices has been shown to affect choices, including healthy eating, physical activity, and alcohol use [23][24][25]. Furthermore, if DCEs are not incentive compatible, respondents may try and answer strategically, for example to understate their willingness to pay for public services [26,27].…”

Section: Background On Validity In Dcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

How well do discrete choice experiments predict health choices? A systematic review and meta-analysis of external validity

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are economic tools that elicit the stated preferences of respondents. Because of their increasing importance in informing the design of health products and services, it is critical to understand the extent to which DCEs give reliable predictions outside of the experimental context. We systematically reviewed the literature of published DCE studies comparing predictions to choices made in reality; we extracted individual-level data to estimate a bivariate mixed-effects model of pooled sensitivity and specificity. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria, and six of these gave sufficient data for inclusion in a meta-analysis. Pooled sensitivity and specificity estimates were 88% (95% CI 81, 92%) and 34% (95% CI 23, 46%), respectively, and the area under the SROC curve (AUC) was 0.60 (95% CI 0.55, 0.64). Results indicate that DCEs can produce reasonable predictions of health-related behaviors. There is a great need for future research on the external validity of DCEs, particularly empirical studies assessing predicted and revealed preferences of a representative sample of participants.

show abstract

Section: Background On Validity In Dcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

How well do discrete choice experiments predict health choices? A systematic review and meta-analysis of external validity

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this perspective, Cheap Talk has not been the remedy of hypothetical bias, despite the promising findings in Cummings and Taylor (1999). As stressed in the Cheap Talk literature, an entreaty might only influence preferences of specific subgroups (Aadland and Caplan, 2003;Caplan, 2006, Ami et al, 2011;List, 2001;Lusk, 2003), such as female respondents (Barrage and Lee, 2010;Ladenburg et al, 2011;Mahieu, 2010). In addition, the wording of the entreaty might be too powerful (Morrison and Brown, 2009), too weak (Ami et al, 2001;Nayga et al, 2006;Blumenschein et al, 2008) or even have the opposite effect on preferences than intended (Aadland and Caplan, 2006;Carlsson et al, 2011).…”

Section: Status Quo Bias and Mitigation Thereofmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing Status Quo Bias in Choice Experiments

Bonnichsen

Ladenburg²

2015

Nordic J Health Eco

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To secure the validity and applicability of stated preference measures in economic analysis, hypothetical preferences must mimic real life preferences. For instance, people have a propensity to prefer what they already have when presented with alternatives that, all things being equal, seem to be superior, i.e. a status quo effect. However, in the stated preference literature, the tendency to choose the alternative representing the status quo situation seems to exceed real life status quo effects. Accordingly, status quo bias can be a problem. In the Choice Experiment literature, status quo bias is found to be a function of protest attitudes concerning the payment of the hypothetical good. In a split sample framework we test an ex-ante entreaty aimed at reducing payment based protest attitudes. We find that the entreaty reduces status quo bias and improves the internal validity of stated preferences in our data based on Swedish ostomates’ preferences for ostomy pouch quality changes. Published: Online January 2015. In print December 2015.

show abstract

“…Cummings and Taylor (1999) found the CT to reduce stated WTP and effectively eliminate the hypothetical bias. However, the effect of CT has been tested extensively in subsequent CVM studies, and the results here are much more ambiguous (Aadland and Caplan 2003;2006;Ami et al 2009;Barrage and Lee 2010;Brown et al 2003;Carlsson and Martinsson 2006;List 2001;Morrison and Brown 2009;Murphy et al 2005a). Related to this line of research, Murphy et al (2005b, pp.337) comment that: "…it is likely that a number of factors affect hypothetical bias and therefore no single technique will be the magic bullet that eliminates this bias", and in relation to this Taylor et al (2007) continue: "Further research is warranted on the efficacy of techniques to reduce "yea-saying" in conjoint questions".…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys

Ladenburg¹,

Olsen

2014

Resource and Energy Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Hypothetical bias remains a major problem when valuing non-market goods with stated preference methods. Originally developed for Contingent Valuation studies, Cheap Talk has been found to effectively reduce hypothetical bias in some applications, though empirical results are ambiguous. We discuss reasons why Cheap Talk may fail to effectively remove hypothetical bias, especially in Choice Experiments. In this light, we suggest augmenting Cheap Talk in Choice Experiments with a so-called Opt-Out Reminder. Prior to each single choice set, the Opt-Out Reminder explicitly instructs respondents to choose the opt-out alternative if they find the experimentally designed alternatives too expensive. In an empirical Choice Experiment survey we find the Opt-Out Reminder to significantly reduce total WTP and to some extent also marginal WTP beyond the capability of the Cheap Talk applied without the Opt-Out Reminder. This suggests that rather than merely adopting the Cheap Talk practice directly from Contingent Valuation, it should be adapted to fit the potentially different decision processes and repeated choices structure of the Choice Experiment format. Our results further suggest that augmenting Cheap Talk with a dynamic Opt-Out Reminder can be an effective and promising improvement in the ongoing effort to remedy the particular types of hypothetical bias that potentially continue to invalidate Choice Experiment surveys.

show abstract

A penny for your thoughts: Inducing truth-telling in stated preference elicitation

Cited by 33 publications

References 13 publications

How well do discrete choice experiments predict health choices? A systematic review and meta-analysis of external validity

How well do discrete choice experiments predict health choices? A systematic review and meta-analysis of external validity

Reducing Status Quo Bias in Choice Experiments

Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About