IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/caa/jnlage/v62y2016i8id174-2015-agricecon.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing the effectiveness of the oath script in reducing the hypothetical bias in the Contingent Valuation Method

Author

Listed:
  • Tiziana DE-MAGISTRIS

    (Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria de Aragón (CITA), Gobierno de Aragón, Zaragoza, Spain and Instituto Agroalimentario de Aragón-IA2, (CITA-Universidad de Zaragoza), Zaragoza, Spain)

  • Faical AKAICHI

    (Land Economy Environment and Society, Scotland's Rural College (SRUC), Edinburgh, United Kingdom)

  • Kamel BEN YOUSSEF

    (Université Paris Quest Nanterre La Défense, UFR-SEGMI, Nanterre, France)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Tiziana DE-MAGISTRIS & Faical AKAICHI & Kamel BEN YOUSSEF, 2016. "Testing the effectiveness of the oath script in reducing the hypothetical bias in the Contingent Valuation Method," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(8), pages 378-384.
    • Handle: RePEc:caa:jnlage:v:62:y:2016:i:8:id:174-2015-agricecon
    DOI: 10.17221/174/2015-AGRICECON
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://agricecon.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/174/2015-AGRICECON.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: http://agricecon.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/174/2015-AGRICECON.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17221/174/2015-AGRICECON?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Glynn T. Tonsor & Robert S. Shupp, 2011. "Cheap Talk Scripts and Online Choice Experiments: "Looking Beyond the Mean"," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(4), pages 1015-1031.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cao, Ying (Jessica) & Cranfield, John & Chen, Chen & Widowski, Tina, 2021. "Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Sardaro, Ruggiero & La Sala, Piermichele & De Pascale, Gianluigi & Faccilongo, Nicola, 2021. "The conservation of cultural heritage in rural areas: Stakeholder preferences regarding historical rural buildings in Apulia, southern Italy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    3. Broberg, Thomas & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Persson, Lars, 2021. "Household preferences for load restrictions: Is there an effect of pro-environmental framing?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    4. Ochs, Dan & Wolf, Christopher A. & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Bir, Courtney & Lai, John, 2019. "Hen housing system information effects on U.S. egg demand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Rocamora, Beatriz & Colombo, Sergio & Glenk, Klaus, 2014. "El impacto de las respuestas inconsistentes en las medidas de bienestar estimadas con el método del experimento de elección," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 14(02), pages 1-22, December.
    6. Richartz, P. Christoph & Abdulai, Awudu & Kornher, Lukas, 2020. "Attribute Non Attendance and Consumer Preferences for Online Food Products in Germany," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 69(1), March.
    7. Katherine Fuller & Carola Grebitus, 2023. "Consumers' preferences and willingness to pay for coffee sustainability labels," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(4), pages 1007-1025, October.
    8. Solomon Zena Walelign & Martin Reinhardt Nielsen & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen, 2019. "Roads and livelihood activity choices in the Greater Serengeti Ecosystem, Tanzania," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-21, March.
    9. Ana I. Sanjuán‐López & Helena Resano‐Ezcaray, 2020. "Labels for a Local Food Speciality Product: The Case of Saffron," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 778-797, September.
    10. Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Schleich, Joachim, 2024. "Empirical insights into enabling and impeding factors for increasing citizen investments in renewable energy communities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    11. Adelina Gschwandtner & Jose Eduardo Ribeiro & Cesar Revoredo-Giha & Michael Burton, 2021. "Combining Stated and Revealed Preferences for valuing Organic Chicken Meat," Studies in Economics 2113, School of Economics, University of Kent.
    12. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    13. Ghesla, Claus & Grieder, Manuel & Schubert, Renate, 2020. "Nudging the poor and the rich – A field study on the distributional effects of green electricity defaults," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    14. Haile, Kaleab K. & Tirivayi, Nyasha & Tesfaye, Wondimagegn, 2019. "Farmers’ willingness to accept payments for ecosystem services on agricultural land: The case of climate-smart agroforestry in Ethiopia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    15. Pascucci, Stefano & Magistris, Tiziana de, 2013. "Information Bias Condemning Radical Food Innovators? The Case of Insect-Based Products in the Netherlands," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 16(3), pages 1-16, September.
    16. Sackett, Hillary & Shupp, Robert & Tonsor, Glynn, 2016. "Differentiating “Sustainable” From “Organic” And “Local” Food Choices: Does Information About Certification Criteria Help Consumers?," International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC), Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Department of Economics and Finance, vol. 4(3), pages 1-15, July.
    17. Harasheh, Murad & Bouteska, Ahmed & Manita, Riadh, 2024. "Investors' preferences for sustainable investments: Evidence from the U.S. using an experimental approach," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).
    18. Ndebele, T. & Marsh, Dan, 2013. "Consumer choice of electricity supplier: Investigating preferences for attributes of electricity services," 2013 Conference, August 28-30, 2013, Christchurch, New Zealand 160417, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    19. Ali Ardeshiri & Joffre Swait & Elizabeth C. Heagney & Mladen Kovac, 2019. "Preserve or retreat? Willingness-to-pay for Coastline Protection in New South Wales," Papers 1902.03310, arXiv.org.
    20. Adelina Gshwandtner & Cheul Jang & Richard McManus, 2017. "Improving Drinking Quality in South Korea: A Choice Experiment," Studies in Economics 1720, School of Economics, University of Kent.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:caa:jnlage:v:62:y:2016:i:8:id:174-2015-agricecon. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ivo Andrle (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cazv.cz/en/home/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.