Hypothetical Bias Mitigation Techniques in Choice Experiments: Do Cheap Talk and Honesty Priming Effects Fade with Repeated Choices?

Howard, Gregory; Roe, Brian E.; Nisbet, Erik C.; Martin, Jay F.

doi:10.1086/691593

Cited by 29 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Between the standard CV and the cheap talk CV questions there is no significant difference in the amount donated and willingness to contribute (Mann-Whitney test z-value of 0.365). This is partly in line with recent findings by Howard et al (2017), who find that the effect of cheap talk scripts in a choice experiment setting is transient. However, between the standard CV and the actual donation request, and between the cheap talk CV and the actual donation request, there is a significant difference, both in the number of people willing to donate and in the donated amount (Mann-Whitney z-values of -10.2 and Land Economics -10.6, respectively).…”

Section: Data Collection and Descriptive Statisticssupporting

confidence: 92%

Mind the Gap: Stated versus Revealed Donations and the Differential Role of Behavioral Factors

Bouma

Koetse²

2019

Land Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper uses a contingent valuation study and an actual donation request to assess the impact of behavioral factors on hypothetical bias in stated willingness-to-pay estimates. Our findings indicate that both the number of respondents willing to donate and the amount they are willing to donate differ substantially between treatments. Behavioral factors play a substantial and significant role; in particular, the extent of warm glow derived from giving and expectations about other people's behavior increase the extent of hypothetical bias in stated willingness-to-pay estimates. We suggest ways in which this may be incorporated in future contingent valuation study design.

show abstract

Section: Data Collection and Descriptive Statisticssupporting

confidence: 92%

Mind the Gap: Stated versus Revealed Donations and the Differential Role of Behavioral Factors

Bouma

Koetse²

2019

Land Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, Corrigan-Gibbs et al (2015) found that honor codes, previously proven successful in promoting honesty by Mazar et al (2008) and Shu et al (2011), may not have any effect. A mass direct replication by Verschuere et al (2018) of the well-known Ten Commandments experiment by Mazar et al (2008) showed no effect, too, and there are more honesty intervention replication studies that show null results (e.g., Howard et al 2017;Pashler et al 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…H5 "Narcissism moderates the honesty effect of digital signatures" Shu et al (2012) have established that a signature intervention only has an effect on honesty if it is placed before the information reporting moment. Howard, Roe, Nisbet, and Martin (2017) observe that the effect of a honesty priming intervention fades away when individuals are confronted with repeated choices. An analysis of the data of the study that Howard et al 2017performed an online replication of (viz., De-Magistris et al 2013) reveals the same pattern.…”

Section: Narcissismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital signatures: a tool to prevent and predict dishonesty?

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dishonesty is prevalent and causes great damage to society. On an individual level, besides reaping rewards, it also carries a psychological cost for those who engage in it. This principle is used to make people more honest with behavioral interventions, one of them being the well-known 'signature nudge'. Digital transition in society has however led to changes in the way people sign, which may affect the effectiveness of this nudge. In two experiments, the current study investigates the relationship between digital signatures and honesty, building on previous research by examining novel signature types, the moderating role of personal characteristics, effect decay, and the predicting value of digital signature characteristics. Results show no effect of any signature intervention and no unilateral relation between digital signature characteristics and subsequent behavior. These findings contrast with earlier research and cast doubt on the use of signature interventions as a tool to prevent or predict dishonest behavior.

show abstract

“…Hence, excluding the no‐choice option is reasonable given that most consumers would not consider this an option in real‐world settings. Similar designs were used in, for example, Carlsson and Martinsson (2001); Carlsson et al (2007a,b); and Howard, Roe, Nisbet, and Martin (2017). Figure 1 provides an example of a choice set used in the survey.…”

Section: Dce Design and Product Contextmentioning

confidence: 98%

An analysis of the impacts of tasting experience and peer effects on consumers’ willingness to pay for novel foods

Alemu

Olsen

2020

Agribusiness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the impacts of tasting experience and observing peers' taste preferences on consumers' willingness to pay (WTP) for novel insect-based food products. In an empirical incentivized discrete choice experiment (DCE) developed to estimate Kenyan consumers' WTP for buns made with cricket flour, we test two treatments against a control treatment using a between-subject design. The control treatment is a typical DCE questionnaire survey. Treatment 1 is identical to the control except that respondents are asked to taste the buns before answering the questionnaire. In Treatment 2, respondents are also given the tasting experience but they additionally observe their peers' taste preferences for the buns. The results suggest that tasting experience is important since Treatment 1 obtains significantly higher WTP estimates than the control. However, allowing additionally for peer effects in Treatment 2 significantly reduces the WTP estimates again countering the effect of tasting in Treatment 1. According to the results, this is partly related to the observation of peers reacting negatively in terms of disliking the bun products. [EconLit Citations: D12, D90, Q13].

show abstract

Hypothetical Bias Mitigation Techniques in Choice Experiments: Do Cheap Talk and Honesty Priming Effects Fade with Repeated Choices?

Cited by 29 publications

References 55 publications

Mind the Gap: Stated versus Revealed Donations and the Differential Role of Behavioral Factors

Mind the Gap: Stated versus Revealed Donations and the Differential Role of Behavioral Factors

Digital signatures: a tool to prevent and predict dishonesty?

An analysis of the impacts of tasting experience and peer effects on consumers’ willingness to pay for novel foods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About