Testing the effectiveness of the oath script in reducing the hypothetical bias in the Contingent Valuation Method
Tiziana De-Magistris, Faical Akaichi, Kamel Ben Youssefhttps://doi.org/10.17221/174/2015-AGRICECONCitation:De-Magistris T., Akaichi F., Ben Youssef K. (2016): Testing the effectiveness of the oath script in reducing the hypothetical bias in the Contingent Valuation Method . Agric. Econ. – Czech, 62: 378-384.
The objective of the study is to investigate the effect of the oath script (HO) in an hypothetical Contingent Valuation survey in a Mediterranean country (e.g. Italy). Hence, there were conducted the CE surveys with three treatments: (1) CV without a cognitive task, (2) CV with a CT script, and (3) CV with a HO. The findings showed that the effectiveness of the HO script depends on the participants’ socio-demographic characteristics. For instance, it was found that the HO script could help to reduce the hypothetical bias for people who possess a high educational level in contrast with those people with low education and low income. Hence, the findings suggest that the oath script not only does not a guarantee the reduction of the hypothetical bias, but it also does not explain the mixed results found in the previous studies.Keywords:
cheap talk script, Contingent Valuation, oath script, Willingness-To-Pay
Brummett R.G., Nayga R.M., Wu X. (2007): On the use of cheap talk in new product valuation. Economics Bulletin, 2: 1–9.Cameron Trudy Ann, Poe Gregory L., Ethier Robert G., Schulze William D. (2002): Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44, 391-425 https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.2001.1210Carlsson Fredrik, Martinsson Peter (2001): Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 41, 179-192 https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.2000.1138Carlsson F., Kataria M., Krupnick A., Lampi E., Löfgren A., Qin P., Sterner T., Chung S. (2010): The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: a multiple country test of an oath script. Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization, 89: 105–121; doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2013.02.003Chang Jae Bong, Lusk Jayson L., Norwood F. Bailey (2009): How Closely Do Hypothetical Surveys and Laboratory Experiments Predict Field Behavior?. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91, 518-534 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01242.xCummings Ronald G, Taylor Laura O (1999): Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method. American Economic Review, 89, 649-665 https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.89.3.649de-Magistris Tiziana, Pascucci Stefano (2014): The effect of the solemn oath script in hypothetical choice experiment survey: A pilot study. Economics Letters, 123, 252-255 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2014.02.016de-Magistris T., Gracia A., Nayga R. M. (): On the Use of Honesty Priming Tasks to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 95, 1136-1154 https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aat052European Commission (2001): Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility. Green Paper and COM 366. Brussels.Jacquemet Nicolas, James Alexander G., Luchini Stéphane, Shogren Jason F. (2011): Social Psychology and Environmental Economics: A New Look at ex ante Corrections of Biased Preference Evaluation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 48, 413-433 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9448-4Jacquemet Nicolas, Joule Robert-Vincent, Luchini Stéphane, Shogren Jason F. (2013): Preference elicitation under oath. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 65, 110-132 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2012.05.004Johansson-Stenman Olof, Svedsäter Henrik (2008): Measuring Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments: The Importance of Cognitive Consistency. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 8, - https://doi.org/10.2202/1935-1682.1898Lindgreen Adam, Swaen Valérie (2010): Corporate Social Responsibility. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 1-7 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00277.xList John A (2001): Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards. American Economic Review, 91, 1498-1507 https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.5.1498List J.A., Gallet G.A. (2001): What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical state value? Environmental and Resource Economics, 20: 241–254; doi: 10.1023/a:1012791822804 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012791822804Lockett Andy, Moon Jeremy, Visser Wayne (2006): Corporate Social Responsibility in Management Research: Focus, Nature, Salience and Sources of Influence*. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 115-136 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00585.xLoomis John, Bell Paul, Cooney Helen, Asmus Cheryl (2009): A Comparison of Actual and Hypothetical Willingness to Pay of Parents and Non-Parents for Protecting Infant Health: The Case of Nitrates in Drinking Water. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 41, 697-712 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1074070800003163Murphy James J., Allen P. Geoffrey, Stevens Thomas H., Weatherhead Darryl (2005): A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation. Environmental & Resource Economics, 30, 313-325 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-004-3332-zSilva A., Nayga R., Campbell B.L., Park L.J. (2011): Revisiting cheap talk with new evidence from a field experiment. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 36: 280–291.Tonsor G. T., Shupp R. S. (): Cheap Talk Scripts and Online Choice Experiments: "Looking Beyond the Mean". American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 93, 1015-1031 https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aar036