The compiler of this list writes:
I'd like to thank everyone that replied to my request for references comparing hypothetical vs. actual willingness to pay. Below, you will find the compiled results from all of your feedback. Thanks Again,
Gregg Caporossi
References:
Aadland D and Caplan AJ. Willingness to pay for Curbside Recycling with Detection and Mitigation of Hypothetical Bias, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2003, 85: 492-502.
Adamowicz WL Louviere J and Williams M. Combining stated preference and revealed preference methods for valuing environmental amenities, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1994; 26: 271-296
Adamowicz WL Swait J Boxall P C Louviere J and Williams M. Perceptions versus objective measure of environmental quality in combined revealed and stated preference models of environmental valuation, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1997; 32: 65-84
Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman and Hall: London,1991.
Azevedo CD Herriges JA and Kling CL. Combining Revealed Preference and Stated Preferences: Consistency Tests and their Interpretations, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2003, 85(3): 525-537.
Bachman JG and O’Malley PM. Yea-saying, nay-saying, and going to extremes: black-white differences in response styles. Public Opinion Quarterly 1984; 48: 491-509.
Bala MV Wood LL Cates SC and Gambin SP. Predicting participation intentions for optimal energy services, Resource and Energy Economics 1998; 20: 187-301.
Bjornstad D Cummings R and Osborne L. A learning design for reducing hypothetical bias in the contingent valuation method, Environmental and Resource Economics 1997; 10: 207-221
Blamey RK, Bennett JW and Morrison, MD. Divergences in revealed and stated preferences and the effect of social desirability prompts in environmental choice experiments. Paper Presented at the World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists, Venice, Italy, June 2000.
Blumenschein K, Johannesson M, Blomquist GC, Liljas B and O’Conor RM. Experimental results on expressed certainty and hypothetical bias in contingent valuation, Southern Economic Journal 1998, 65(1), 169-177
Blumenschein K, Johannesson M, Blomquist GC, Liljas B, O’Conor RM. Hypothetical versus real payments in Vickrey auctions, Economic Letters 1997, 56, 177-180.
Blumenschein K, Johannesson M, Yokoyama KK and Freeman PR. Hypothetical versus actual willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment, Journal of Health Economics 2001; 20: 441-457
Boxall PC Englin J and Adamowicz WL. Valuing aboriginal artefacts: A combined revealed –stated preference approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2003; 45: 213-230.
Brown KM and Taylor Lo. Do as you say, say as you do: Evidence on gender differences in actual and stated contributions to public goods, Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation 2000; 43: 127-139.
Brown TC Ajzen I and Hrubes D., Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2003, 46(2): 353-361.
Brown, Thomas C., Patricia A. Champ, Richard C. Bishop, and Daniel W. McCollum,
``Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good?''
Land Economics, 72 (1996), 152—166
Burton AC, Carson KS, Chilton SM and Hutchinson WG. Divergent Behaviour
in Hypothetical Referenda: An Experimental Inquiry, Paper presented at European
Association of Environmental and Resource Economists Twelfth Annual Conference,
Bibao, Spain 28th-30th June, 2003.
Camacho-Cuena E, García-Gallego A, Georgantzís N and Sabater-Grande G. An Experimental Validation of Hypothetical WTP for a Recyclable Product, Environmental and Resource Economics, Forthcoming, 1-23.
Cameron TA. Combining contingent valuation and travel cost data for the valuation of non-market goods, Land Economics 1992; 68: 302-317.
Carlson JL. Hypothetical Surveys versus Real Commitments: Further Evidence, Applied Economics Letters 2000, 7: 447-450.
Carlsson F and Martinsson P. Do hypothetical and actual willingness to pay differ in choice experiments? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2001; 41: 179-192.
Clarke PM. Testing the convergent validity of the contingent valuation and travel cost methods in valuing the benefits of healthcare, Health Econ 2002; 11: 117-127.
Couch A. and Kenitson K. Yeasayers and naysayers: agreeing response set as a personality variable. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 1960; 60: 151-174.
Cummings RG and Taylor LO, Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: A cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. The American Economic Review, 1999, 89(3), 649-665.
Cummings RG Harrison GW and Rutstrom EE. Home grown values and hypothetical surveys: Is the dichotomous choice approach incentive compatible? The American Economic Review 1995; 85: 260-66
Diamond P and Hausman J. Contingent valuation: Is some number better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives 1994; 8(4): 45-64.
Frykblom P. Hypothetical question modes and real willingness to pay, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1997; 34: 275-287.
Gegax D and Stanley LR. Validating conjoint and hedonic preference measures: Evidence from valuing reductions in risk. Quarterly Journal of Business and Economics 1997, 36(2), 31-55.
Getzner M. Hypothetical and real economic commitments, and social status, In valuing a species protection programme, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2000; 43(4): 541-559.
Griffen CC Briscoe J Singh B Ramasubbam R Bhatia R, Contingent Valuation and Actual Behaviour: Predicting connections to new water systems in the state of Kerala, India. The World Bank Economic Review, 1995 9(3), 373-395.
Hanemann, Michael. 1994, Journal of Economic Perspectives 4/8, p 19 - 43
Harless D and Camerer C. The predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories. Econometrica 1994; 62: 1251-89.
Herriges JA Kling CL and Azevedo C. Linking revealed and stated preference to test external validity, working paper Iowa State University, 1999.
Hey J and Orme C. (1994) Investigating generalisations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica 62, 1291-326.
Hofler, R. and List, J. "Valuation on the Frontier: Calibrating Actual and Hypothetical Statements of Value," American Journal of Agricultural Economics (2003), forthcoming.
James J. Murphy1, P. Geoffrey Allen2, Thomas H. Stevens3, and Darryl Weatherhead4, A Meta-Analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Resource Economics, Working Paper No. 2003-8, http://www.umass.edu/resec/workingpapers/ResEcWorking%20Paper%202003-8.pdf
Johannesson M Blomquist GC Blumenschein K Johansson PO Liljas B O’Conor RM. Calibrating hypothetical willingness to pay responses Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1999; 8: 21-32
Kanninen B. Bias in discrete response contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1995; 28: 114-125.
Kealy MJ Dovidio JF and Rockel ML. Accuracy in valuation is a matter of degree, Land Economics 1988; 64: 158-171.
Kennedy CA. Revealed preference valuation compared to contingent valuation: Radon induced lung cancer prevention, Health Econ 2002; 11: 585-598.
List JA and Shogren JF. Calibration of the difference between actual and hypothetical valuations in a field experiment, Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation 1998; 37: 193-205
List JA Margolis M and Shogren JF. Hypothetical-actual bid calibration of a multigood auction, Economics Letters 1998; 60: 263-268.
List, J. “Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards,” American Economic Review (2001), 91[5], pp. 1498-1507.
List, J. “Using Random nth Price Auctions to Value Non-Market Goods and Services,” Journal of Regulatory Economics (2003), 23 (2): pp. 193-205.
List, J. and Gallet, C. “What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values? Evidence from a Meta-Analysis,” Environmental and Resource Economics (2001), 20 (3): pp. 241-254.
List, J. and Shogren, J. “Calibration of Willingness-to-Accept,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management (2002), 43 (2): pp. 219-233.
List, J. and Shogren, J. “Experimental Calibration of the Difference Between Actual and Hypothetical Reported Valuations,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Volume 37, Number 2, pp. 193-205 (1998).
List, J. and Shogren, J. “The Deadweight Loss from Christmas: Comment,” American Economic Review, Volume 88, Number 5, pp. 1350-1355 (1998).
List, J., Margolis, M. and Shogren, J. “Hypothetical-Actual Bid Calibration of a Multi-Good Auction,” Economics Letters, Volume 60, Number 3, pp. 263-268 (1998).
List, John A., and Craig A. Gallet, What Experimental Protocol Influence
Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Values?, Environmental and Resource
Economics, 20, 241-254, 2001.
Loomes G and Sugden R. Testing different stochastic specifications of risky
choice. Economica 1998; 65: 581-598.
Loomis J Brown T Lucero B and Peterson G. Evaluating the validity of the dichotomous choice question format in contingent valuation, Environmental and Resource Economics 1997; 10: 109-123.
Loomis J Brown T Lucero B Peterson G. Improving validity experiments of contingent valuation methods: Results of efforts to reduce the disparity of hypothetical and actual willingness to pay, Land Economics 1996; 72(4): 450-461.
Loureiro ML, McCluskey JJ and Mittelhammer RC. Are Stated Preferences Good Predictors of Market Behaviour, Land Economics, 2003 79(1): 44-55
Louviere JJ Hensher DA and Swait JD. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
MacMillan DC Smart TS and Thorburn AP. Validation of the contingent valuation method: A comparison of real and hypothetical donations to an environmental trust, Environmental and Resource Economics 1999; 14(3): 399-414.
Murphy JJ, Stevens T and Weatherhead D. An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias in Voluntary Contribution Contingent Valuation: Does Cheap Talk Matter? Working paper University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 2003
Neill HR, Cummings RG, Ganderton PT, Harrison GW, McGuckin T. Hypothetical surveys and real economic commitments, Land Economics 1994, 70(2), 145-154.
Onwujekwe O. Searching for better willingness to pay elicitation method in rural nigeria: The binary question with follow up method versus the bidding game technique, Health Econ 2000; 10: 147-158.
Paradiso M and Trisorio A. The Effect of Knowledge on the Disparity between Hypothetical and Real Willingness to Pay, Applied Economics 2001, 33: 1359-1364.
Poe GL, Clark JE, Rondeau D and Schulze WD. Provision point mechanisms and field validity test of contingent valuation, Environmental and Resource Economics, 2002, 23, 105-131.
Portney, P. R., (1994), The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care? Journal of Economic Perspectives 1994 8(4): 3-17.
Ready RC Buzby JC, and Hu D. Differences between continuous and discrete contingent value estimates, Land Economics 1996; 72: 397-411.
Ryan M. and Gerard, K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care: current practice and future prospects, Applied Health Economics and Policy Analysis 2003, 2(1): 55-64.
Seip K and Strand J. Willingness to Pay for Environmental Goods in Norway: A Contingent Valuation Study with Real Payment, Environmental and Resource Economics 1992, 2:92-106.
Shechter M Reiser B and Zaitsev N. Measuring passive use value, Environmental and Resource Economics 1998; 12: 457-478.
Smith RD. Construction of the Contingent Valuation Market in Health Care: A Critical Assessment, Health Econ 2003, 12(8): 609-628.
Smith VK and Mansfield C. Buying time: Real and hypothetical offers, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1998; 36:.209-224.
Taylor L. Incentive Compatible referenda and the valuation of environmental goods, Agricultural and Resource Economics 1998 27: 132-139.
Vossler C Kervliet J Polasky S and Gainutdinova O. Externally validating contingent valuation: An open–space survey and referendum in Corvallis Oregon, Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation 2002; 1485: 1-17.
Vriens M Loosschilder G Rosbergen E Wittink D. Verbal versus realistic pictorial representations in conjoint analysis with design attributes. Journal of Product Innovation 1998; 15: 455-467.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------