IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v91y2007i2p518-534.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Closely Do Hypothetical Surveys and Laboratory Experiments Predict Field Behavior?

Author

Listed:
  • Jae Bong Chang
  • Jayson L. Lusk
  • F. Bailey Norwood

Abstract

We compare the ability of three preference elicitation methods (hypothetical choices, nonhypothetical choices, and nonhypothetical rankings) and three discrete-choice econometric models (the multinomial logit [MNL], the independent availability logit [IAL], and the random parameter logit [RPL]) to predict actual retail shopping behavior in three different product categories (ground beef, wheat flour, and dishwashing liquid). Overall, we find a high level of external validity. Our specific results suggest that the nonhypothetical elicitation approaches, especially the nonhypothetical ranking method, outperformed the hypothetical choice experiment in predicting retail sales. We also find that the RPL can have superior predictive performance, but that the MNL predicts equally well in some circumstances. Copyright 2007, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Jae Bong Chang & Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood, 2007. "How Closely Do Hypothetical Surveys and Laboratory Experiments Predict Field Behavior?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(2), pages 518-534.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:91:y:2007:i:2:p:518-534
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01242.x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gidon Felsen & Noah Castelo & Peter B. Reiner, 2013. "Decisional enhancement and autonomy: public attitudes towards overt and covert nudges," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(3), pages 202-213, May.
    2. Celine Michaud & Daniel Llerena & Iragael Joly, 2013. "Willingness to pay for environmental attributes of non-food agricultural products: a real choice experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 40(2), pages 313-329, March.
    3. McAdams, Callie & Palma, Marco A. & Hall, Charles & Ishdorj, Ariun, 2013. "A Nonhypothetical Ranking and Auction Mechanism for Novel Products," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 45(1), pages 35-52, February.
    4. Kesternich, Iris & Heiss, Florian & McFadden, Daniel & Winter, Joachim, 2013. "Suit the action to the word, the word to the action: Hypothetical choices and real decisions in Medicare Part D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1313-1324.
    5. Xie, Jing & Gao, Zhifeng, 2013. "The Comparison of three Non-hypothetical Valuation Methods: Choice Experiments, Contingent Valuation, and Experimental Auction," 2013 Annual Meeting, February 2-5, 2013, Orlando, Florida 143103, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    6. Janie M. Chermak & Kate Krause & David S. Brookshire & H. Stu Burness, 2013. "Moving Forward By Looking Back: Comparing Laboratory Results With Ex Ante Market Data," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(1), pages 1035-1049, January.
    7. Marette Stéphan & Roosen Jutta & Blanchemanche Sandrine, 2011. "The Combination of Lab and Field Experiments for Benefit-Cost Analysis," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 2(3), pages 1-36, August.
    8. Kazuki Kamimura, 2012. "Effectiveness of cigarette tax in Japan," Keio/Kyoto Joint Global COE Discussion Paper Series 2011-035, Keio/Kyoto Joint Global COE Program.
    9. He, Haoran, 2010. "Can Stated Preference Methods Accurately Predict Responses to Environmental Policies? The Case of a Plastic Bag Regulation in China," Working Papers in Economics 444, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    10. Fredrik Carlsson, 2010. "Design of Stated Preference Surveys: Is There More to Learn from Behavioral Economics?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(2), pages 167-177, June.
    11. Grebitus, Carola & Colson, Gregory & Menapace, Luisa, 2012. "A Comparison of Hypothetical Survey Rankings with Consumer Shopping Behavior," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(1), pages 35-47, February.
    12. Trey Malone & Jayson L. Lusk, 2019. "Releasing The Trap: A Method To Reduce Inattention Bias In Survey Data With Application To U.S. Beer Taxes," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 57(1), pages 584-599, January.
    13. Campbell, Danny & Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2018. "The link between response time and preference, variance and processing heterogeneity in stated choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 18-34.
    14. Frank van Tongeren & John Beghin & Stéphane Marette, 2009. "A Cost-Benefit Framework for the Assessment of Non-Tariff Measures in Agro-Food Trade," OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 21, OECD Publishing.
    15. Xie, Jing & Gao, Zhifeng & House, Lisa, 2013. "Purchase Intention Effects in Experimental Auctions and Real Choice Experiments," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 151595, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Loureiro, Maria L. & Gracia, Azucena & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2013. "Do experimental auction estimates pass the scope test?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 7-17.
    17. Frode Alfnes & Maren Bachke & Mette Wik, 2012. "Eliciting donor preferences," Artefactual Field Experiments 00098, The Field Experiments Website.
    18. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:3:p:202-213 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Santos, Julie I. & Uchida, Emi & Anderson, Christopher M. & Swallow, Stephen K., 2013. "Sources of Hypothetical Bias in Public Goods Experiments: A Disaggregated Approach," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150389, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Campbell, Danny, 2014. "Behavioral implications of providing real incentives in stated choice experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 102-116.
    21. Hudson, Darren & Gallardo, Rosa Karina & Hanson, Terrill R., 2012. "A Comparison Of Choice Experiments And Actual Grocery Store Behavior: An Empirical Application To Seafood Products," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 44(1), pages 1-14, February.
    22. Menapace, Luisa & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2013. "Do ‘locally grown’ claims influence artisanal food purchase? Evidence from a natural field experiment," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150282, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    23. Moser, Riccarda & Raffaelli, Roberta & Notaro, Sandra, 2010. "The Role Of Production Methods In Fruit Purchasing Behaviour: Hypothetical Vs Actual Consumers’ Preferences And Stated Minimum Requirements," 115th Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, September 15-17, 2010, Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany 116426, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:ajagec:v:91:y:2007:i:2:p:518-534. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.