Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T18:42:21.317Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can Calibration Reconcile Stated and Observed Preferences?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2005

F. Bailey Norwood
F. Bailey Norwood*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hypothetical bias is a pervasive problem in stated-preference experiments. Recent research has developed two empirically successful calibrations to remove hypothetical bias, though the calibrations have not been tested using the same data or in a conjoint analysis. This study compares the two calibrations in a conjoint analysis involving donations to a public good. Results find the calibrations are biased predictors of true donations but that calibrated and uncalibrated models together provide upper and lower bounds to true donations.

Keywords

calibrationexperimental economicsforecastinghypothetical biaspublic goodsstated preferencevoluntary contributionsQ51H41
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , April 2005 , pp. 237 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bagnoli, M., and Lipman, B.L.. “Provision of Public Goods: Fully Implementing the Core Through Private Contributions.” The Review of Economic Studies 56,4(October 1989):583–601.10.2307/2297502Google Scholar
Blumenschein, K., Johannesson, M., Bloomquist, G.C., Liljas, B., and O'Connor, R.M.. “Experimental Results on Expressed Certainty and Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation.” Southern Economic Journal 65,1(July 1998): 169–77.10.2307/1061360Google Scholar
Blumenschein, K., Johannesson, M., Yokoyama, K.K., and Freeman, P.R.. “Hypothetical Versus Real Willingness to Pay in the Health Care Sector: Results from a Field Experiment.” Journal of Health Economics 20(2001):441–57.10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00075-311373840Google Scholar
Champ, P., and Bishop, R.C.. “Donation Payment Mechanisms and Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias.” Environmental and Resource Economics 19(2001):383–402.10.1023/A:1011604818385Google Scholar
Coulibaly, N., and Brorsen, B.W.. “Explaining the Differences Between Two Previous Meat Generic Advertising Studies.” Agribusiness 15,4(1999):501–15.10.1002/(SICI)1520-6297(199923)15:4<501::AID-AGR6>3.0.CO;2-M3.0.CO;2-M>Google Scholar
High Plains Journal. “Producers Support Beef Checkoff, Study Finds.” Internet Site: http://www.hpj.com/archives/2 004/mar04/Producerssupportbeefcheckof.CFM (Accessed March 4, 2004).Google Scholar
Hofler, R., and List, J.A.. “Valuation on the Frontier: Calibrating Actual and Hypothetical Statements of Value.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86,1(February 2004):213–21.10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00573.xGoogle Scholar
Johannesson, M., Blomquist, G.C., Blumenschein, K., Johannsson, P., and Liljas, B.. “Calibrating Hypothetical Willingness to Pay Responses.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 8(1999): 21–32.Google Scholar
Kuhfeld, W.F., Tobias, R.D., and Garratt, M.. “Efficient Experiment Design with Marketing Research Applications.” Journal of Marketing Research 31,4(November 1994):545–57.10.2307/3151882Google Scholar
List, J.A., and Gallet, C.. “What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?” Environmental and Resource Economics 20(2001):241–54.10.1023/A:1012791822804Google Scholar
Messer, K.D., Kaiser, H.M., and Schulze, W.D.. “Status Quo Bias and Voluntary Contributions: Can Lab Experiments Parallel Real World Outcomes for Generic Advertising?” Proceedings of the National Institute for Commodity Promotion, Research and Evaluation. NICPRE04-03. R.B. 2004–03. February 2004.Google Scholar
Norwood, B., Lusk, J., and Brorsen, W.. “Model Selection for Discrete Variables: Better Statistics For Better Steaks.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 29, 3(2004):404–19.Google Scholar
Poe, G. L., Clark, J.E., Rondeau, D., and Schulze, W.. “Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation.” Environmental and Resource Economics, 23(2002): 105–31.10.1023/A:1020242907259Google Scholar
Train, K.E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Vossler, C.A., Ethier, R.G., Poe, G.L., and Welsh, M.P.. “Payment Certainty in Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Responses: Results from a Field Validity Test.” Southern Economic Journal 69,4(2003):886–902.10.2307/1061656Google Scholar
Winn, C., Norwood, F.B., Chung, C., and Ward, C.. “Surveying the Feasibility of a Voluntary Beef Checkoff.” Presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Agricultural Economics Association in Denver, CO, August 1–4, 2004.Google Scholar