IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/erevae/v41y2014i1p25-46.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing hypothetical bias with a real choice experiment using respondents' own money

Author

Listed:
  • Riccarda Moser
  • Roberta Raffaelli
  • Sandra Notaro

Abstract

The investigation of hypothetical bias in choice experiments (CEs) has typically been conducted in the laboratory with only minimal field experiments. Moreover, it is common practice to provide an initial endowment (money or coupons) to respondents. In this research, we employed a between-subject CE in a supermarket with three different treatments (i.e. hypothetical, hypothetical with cheap talk script and real). With the ‘real’ treatment, we required respondents to use their own money when making a payment. The proposed incentive-compatible mechanism mimics as close as possible the everyday purchasing situation. Results confirm the presence of hypothetical bias and the mixed effectiveness of a cheap talk script. , Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Riccarda Moser & Roberta Raffaelli & Sandra Notaro, 2014. "Testing hypothetical bias with a real choice experiment using respondents' own money," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 41(1), pages 25-46, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:erevae:v:41:y:2014:i:1:p:25-46
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/erae/jbt016
    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.

    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:erevae:v:41:y:2014:i:1:p:25-46. 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/eaaeeea.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.