Hypothetical bias and framing effect in the valuation of private consumer goods

[1]Alfnes, F., Yue, C., & Jensen, H.H. (2010). Cognitive dissonance as a means of reducing hypothetical bias. European Review of Agricultural Economics 37(2), 147–163. doi:10.1093/erae/jbq012.AlfnesF.YueC.&JensenH.H.2010Cognitive dissonance as a means of reducing hypothetical biasEuropean Review of Agricultural Economics37214716310.1093/erae/jbq012Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[2]Becker, G.M., Degroot, M.H., & Marschak, J. (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science 9(3), 226–232. doi:10.1002/bs.3830090304.BeckerG.M.DegrootM.H.&MarschakJ.1964Measuring utility by a single-response sequential methodBehavioral Science9322623210.1002/bs.3830090304Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[3]Blumenschein, K., Johannesson, M., Blomquist, G.C., Liljas, B., & O’Conor, R.M. (1998). Experimental results on expressed certainty and hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Southern Economic Journal 65(1), 169. doi:10.2307/1061360BlumenscheinK.JohannessonM.BlomquistG.C.LiljasB.&O’ConorR.M.1998Experimental results on expressed certainty and hypothetical bias in contingent valuationSouthern Economic Journal65116910.2307/1061360Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[4]Bohm, P., Lindén, J., & Sonnegård, J. (1997). Eliciting reservation prices: Becker– De Groot–Marschak mechanisms vs markets. The Economic Journal 107(443), 1079–1089. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0297.1997.tb00008.xBohmP.LindénJ.&SonnegårdJ.1997Eliciting reservation prices: Becker– De Groot–Marschak mechanisms vs marketsThe Economic Journal1074431079108910.1111/j.1468-0297.1997.tb00008.xOpen DOISearch in Google Scholar

[5]Boyce, R.R., Brown, T.C., McClelland, G.H., Peterson, G.L., & Schulze, W.D. (1989), Experimental Evidence of Existence Values in Payment and Compensation Contexts, Proceedings of the Joint Meetings of the Western Committee on Benefits and Costs of Natural Resource Planning (W-133) 305–36.BoyceR.R.BrownT.C.McClellandG.H.PetersonG.L.&SchulzeW.D.1989Experimental Evidence of Existence Values in Payment and Compensation ContextsProceedings of the Joint Meetings of the Western Committee on Benefits and Costs of Natural Resource Planning (W-133)30536Search in Google Scholar

[6]Braun, K.A., Gaeth, G.J., & Levin, I.P. (1997). Framing effects with differential impact: the role of attribute salience. ACR North American Advances NA-24. Retrieved from http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=8078BraunK.A.GaethG.J.&LevinI.P.1997Framing effects with differential impact: the role of attribute salienceACR North American AdvancesNA-24. Retrieved fromhttp://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=8078Search in Google Scholar

[7]Doyon, M., Saulais, L., Ruffieux, B., & Bweli, D. (2015). Hypothetical Bias for Private Goods: Does Cheap Talk Make a Difference? Retrieved from https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01254936/DoyonM.SaulaisL.RuffieuxB.&BweliD.2015Hypothetical Bias for Private Goods: Does Cheap Talk Make a Difference?Retrieved fromhttps://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01254936/Search in Google Scholar

[8]Foster, H., Burrows J. (2017), Hypothetical bias: a new meta-analysis, McFadden, D., Train, K (red.), Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods: A Comprehensive Critique 270–91.FosterH.BurrowsJ.2017Hypothetical bias: a new meta-analysisMcFaddenD.TrainKContingent Valuation of Environmental Goods: A Comprehensive Critique2709110.4337/9781786434692.00016Search in Google Scholar

[9]Hardisty, D.J., Johnson, E.J., & Weber, E.U. (2010). A dirty word or a dirty world? Psychological Science 21(1), 86–92. doi:10.1177/0956797609355572.HardistyD.J.JohnsonE.J.&WeberE.U.2010A dirty word or a dirty world?Psychological Science211869210.1177/0956797609355572Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[10]Kagel, J.H. (1995). Auctions: A Survey of Experimental Research, Kagel, J., Roth, A.E. (eds.), Handbook of Experimental Economics 501–85.KagelJ.H.1995Auctions: A Survey of Experimental ResearchKagelJ.RothA.E.Handbook of Experimental Economics5018510.2307/j.ctvzsmff5.11Search in Google Scholar

[11]Kühberger, A, Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., & Perner, J. (1999). The effects of framing, reflection, probability, and payoff on risk preference in choice tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 78(3), 204–231.KühbergerA, Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M.&PernerJ.1999The effects of framing, reflection, probability, and payoff on risk preference in choice tasksOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes78320423110.1006/obhd.1999.2830Search in Google Scholar

[12]Kühberger, A., Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., & Perner, J. (2002). Framing decisions: Hypothetical and real. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89(2), 1162-1175. doi: 10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00021-3KühbergerA.Schulte-MecklenbeckM.&PernerJ.2002Framing decisions: Hypothetical and realOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes8921162117510.1016/S0749-5978(02)00021-3Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[13]Levin, I.P., Chapman, D.P., & Johnson, R.D. (1988). Confidence in judgments based on incomplete information: an investigation using both hypothetical and real gambles. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 1(1), 29–41. doi:10.1002/bdm.3960010105.LevinI.P.ChapmanD.P.&JohnsonR.D.1988Confidence in judgments based on incomplete information: an investigation using both hypothetical and real gamblesJournal of Behavioral Decision Making11294110.1002/bdm.3960010105Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[14]Levin, I.P., & Gaeth, G.J. (1988). How Consumers Are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information Before and After Consuming the Product, Journal of Consumer Research 15 (3), 374–378, doi: 10.1086/209174LevinI.P.&GaethG.J.1988How Consumers Are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information Before and After Consuming the ProductJournal of Consumer Research15337437810.1086/209174Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[15]Levin, I.P., Schneider, S.L., & Gaeth, G.J. (1998), All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76, 149-188. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1998.2804.LevinI.P.SchneiderS.L.&GaethG.J.1998All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effectsOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes7614918810.1006/obhd.1998.2804Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[16]List, J.A. (2001). “Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auctions for sportscards. American Economic Review 91(5), 1498–1507. doi:10.1257/aer.91.5.1498.ListJ.A.2001“Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auctions for sportscardsAmerican Economic Review9151498150710.1257/aer.91.5.1498Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[17]List, J.A. (2003). Using random nth price auctions to value non-market goods and services. Journal of Regulatory Economics 23(2), 193–205. doi:10.1023/A:1022259014448.ListJ.A.2003Using random nth price auctions to value non-market goods and servicesJournal of Regulatory Economics23219320510.1023/A:1022259014448Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[18]List, J.A., & Gallet, C.A. (2001). What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environmental and Resource Economics 20(3), 241–254. doi:10.1023/A:1012791822804.ListJ.A.&GalletC.A.2001What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values?Environmental and Resource Economics20324125410.1023/A:1012791822804Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[19]Moser, R., Raffaelli, R., & Notaro, S. (2014). Testing hypothetical bias with a real choice experiment using respondents’ own money. European Review of Agricultural Economics 41(1), 25–46. doi:10.1093/erae/jbt016.MoserR.RaffaelliR.&NotaroS.2014Testing hypothetical bias with a real choice experiment using respondents’ own moneyEuropean Review of Agricultural Economics411254610.1093/erae/jbt016Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[20]Murphy, J.J., Allen, P.G., Stevens, T.H., & Weatherhead, D. (2005). A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 30(3), 313–325. doi:10.1007/s10640-004-3332-z.MurphyJ.J.AllenP.G.StevensT.H.&WeatherheadD.2005A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuationEnvironmental and Resource Economics30331332510.1007/s10640-004-3332-zOpen DOISearch in Google Scholar

[21]Murphy, J.J., & Stevens, T.H. (2004). Contingent valuation, hypothetical bias, and experimental economics. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 33(2), 182–192. doi:10.1017/S1068280500005761.MurphyJ.J.&StevensT.H.2004Contingent valuation, hypothetical bias, and experimental economicsAgricultural and Resource Economics Review33218219210.1017/S1068280500005761Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[22]Paese, P.W. (1995). Effects of framing on actual time allocation decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 61(1), 67–76.PaeseP.W.1995Effects of framing on actual time allocation decisionsOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes611677610.1006/obhd.1995.1006Search in Google Scholar

[23]Piñon, A., & Gambara, H. (2005). A meta-analytic review of framming effect: risky, attribute and goal framing. Psicothema 17(2), 325–331.PiñonA.&GambaraH.2005A meta-analytic review of framming effect: risky, attribute and goal framingPsicothema172325331Search in Google Scholar

[24]Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science (New York, N.Y.) 185(4157), 1124–1131. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.TverskyA.&KahnemanD.1974Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biasesScience (New York, N.Y.)18541571124113110.1126/science.185.4157.1124Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[25]Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The Framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science211 (4481), 453–58. doi:10.1126/science.7455683.TverskyA.&KahnemanD.1981The Framing of decisions and the psychology of choiceScience21144814535810.1126/science.7455683Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[26]Wertenbroch, K., & Skiera, B. (2002). Measuring consumers’ willingness to pay at the point of purchase. Journal of Marketing Research 39(2), 228–241. doi:10.1509/jmkr.39.2.228.19086.WertenbrochK.&SkieraB.2002Measuring consumers’ willingness to pay at the point of purchaseJournal of Marketing Research39222824110.1509/jmkr.39.2.228.19086Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[27]Wiseman, D.B., & Levin, I.P. (1996). Comparing risky decision making under conditions of real and hypothetical consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 66(3), 241–250.WisemanD.B.&LevinI.P.1996Comparing risky decision making under conditions of real and hypothetical consequencesOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes66324125010.1006/obhd.1996.0053Search in Google Scholar