Re-examining empirical evidence on stated preferences: importance of incentive compatibility

References

• Alfnes, F., A. Guttormsen, G. Steine, and K. Kolstad. 2006. “Consumers' Willingness to Pay for the Color of Salmon: A Choice Experiment with Real Economic Incentives.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88 (4): 1050–1061.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alfnes, F., C. Yue, and H.H. Jensen. 2010. “Cognitive Dissonance as a Means of Reducing Hypothetical Bias.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 37 (2): 147–163.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aoki, K., J. Shen, and S. Tatsuyoshi. 2010. “Consumer Reaction to Information on Food Additives: Evidence from an Eating Experiment and a Field Survey.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 73 (3): 433–438.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arrow, K., R. Solow, P.R. Portney, E.E. Leamer, R. Radner, and H. Schuman. 1993. “Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation.” Federal Register 58: 4601–4614.
   Google Scholar
• Backhaus, K., R. Wilken, M. Voeth, and C. Sichtmann. 2005. “An Empirical Comparison of Methods to Measure Willingness to Pay by Examining the Hypothetical Bias.” International Journal of Market Research 47 (5): 543–562.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balistreri, E., G. McClelland, G.L. Poe, and W. Schulze. 2001. “Can Hypothetical Questions Reveal True Values? A Laboratory Comparison of Dichotomous Choice and Open-Ended Contingent Values with Auction Values.” Environmental and Resource Economics 18 (3): 275–292.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrage, L., and M.S. Lee. 2010. “A Penny for Your Thoughts: Inducing Truth-Telling in Stated Preference Elicitation.” Economics Letters 106 (2): 140–142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bateman, I.J., R.T. Carson, B. Day, M. Haneman, N. Hanley, T. Hett, M. Jones-Lee, et al. 2002. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Bateman, I., A. Munro, B. Rhodes, C. Starmer, and R. Sugden. 1997. “A Test of the Theory of Reference-Dependent Preferences.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112 (2): 479–505.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishop, R., and T.A. Heberlein. 1979. “Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61 (5): 926–930.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishop, R., T.A. Heberlein, and M.J. Kealy. 1983. “Contingent Valuation of Environmental Assets: Comparisons with a Simulated Market.” Natural Resources Journal 23 (3): 619–634.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bjornstad, D., R.G. Cummings, and L. Osborne. 1997. “A Learning Design for Reducing Hypothetical Bias in the Contingent Valuation Method.” Environmental and Resource Economics 10 (3): 207–221.
   Google Scholar
• Blumenschein, K., G.C. Blomquist, M. Johannesson, N. Horn, and P. Freeman. 2008. “Eliciting Willingness to Pay Without Bias: Evidence from a Field Experiment.” The Economic Journal 118: 114–137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blumenschein, K., M. Johannesson, G.C. Blomquist, B. Liljas, and R.M. O'Conor. 1998. “Experimental Results on Expressed Certainty and Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation.” Southern Economic Journal 65 (1): 169–177.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blumenschein, K., M. Johannesson, K.K. Yokoyama, and P. Freeman. 2001. “Hypothetical Versus Real Willingness to Pay in the Health Care Sector: Results from a Field Experiment.” Journal of Health Economics 20 (3): 441–457.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Botelho, A., and L.C. Pinto. 2002. “Hypothetical, Real, and Predicted Real Willingness to Pay in Open-Ended Surveys: Experimental Results.” Applied Economic Letters 9 (15): 993–996.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brander, L.M., R.J.G.M. Florax, and J.E. Vermaat. 2006. “The Empirics of Wetland Valuation: A Comprehensive Summary and Meta-analysis of the Literature.” Environmental and Resource Economics 33 (2): 223–250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brander, L.M., P. Van Beukering, and H.S. Cesar. 2007. “The Recreational Value of Coral Reefs: A Meta-analysis.” Ecological Economics 63 (1): 209–218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broadbent, C.D. 2012. “Hypothetical Bias, Consequentiality and Choice Experiments.” Economics Bulletin 32 (3): 2490–2499.
   Google Scholar
• Broadbent, C.D. 2014. “Evaluating Mitigation and Calibration Techniques for Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 57 (12): 1831–1848.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broadbent, C.D., J.B. Grandy, and R. Berrens. 2010. “Testing for Hypothetical Bias in a Choice Experiment Using a Local Public Good: Riparian Forest Restoration.” International Journal of Ecological Economics and Statistics 19 (F10): 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, T.C., I. Ajzen, and D. Hrubes. 2003. “Further Tests of Entreaties to Avoid Hypothetical Bias in Referendum Contingent Valuation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 46 (2): 353–361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, T., P. Champ, R. Bishop, and D. McCollum. 1996. “Which Response Format Reveals the Truth About Donations to a Public Good?” Land Economics 72: 152–166.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, T., and J.W. Duffield. 1995. “Testing Part-Whole Valuation Effects in Contingent Valuation of Instream Flow Protection.” Water Resources Research 31 (9): 2341–2351.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, T., and L.O. Taylor. 2000. “Do As You Say, Say as You Do: Evidence on Gender Differences in Actual and Stated Contributions to Public Goods.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 43 (1): 127–139.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brownstone, D., and K.A. Small. 2005. “Valuing Time and Reliability: Assessing the Evidence from Road Pricing Demonstrations.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 39 (4): 279–293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burton, A., K.S. Carson, S.M. Chilton, and G.W. Hutchinson. 2007. “Resolving Questions about Bias in Real and Hypothetical Referenda.” Environmental and Resource Economics 38 (4): 513–525.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camacho-Cuena, E., A. García-Gallego, N. Georgantzís, and G. Sabater-Grande. 2004. “An Experimental Validation of Hypothetical WTP for a Recyclable Product.” Environmental and Resource Economics 27 (3): 313–335.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron, T.A., G.L. Poe, R.G. Ethier, and W. Schulze. 2002. “Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44 (3): 391–425.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlson, J.L. 2000. “Hypothetical Surveys Versus Real Economic Commitments: Further Evidence.” Applied Economics Letters 7 (7): 447–450.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlsson, F., D. Daruvala, and H. Jaldell. 2010. “Do You Do What You Say or Do You Do What You Say Others Do?” Journal of Choice Modelling 3 (2): 113–133.
   Google Scholar
• Carlsson, F., and P. Martinsson. 2001. “Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 41 (2): 179–192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson, K.S., S.M. Chilton, and G.W. Hutchinson. 2009. “Necessary Conditions for Demand Revelation in Double Referenda.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 57 (2): 219–225.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson, R.T. 1997. “Contingent Valuation and Tests of Insensitivity to Scope.” In Determining the Value of Non-marketed Goods: Economic, Psychological, and Policy Relevant Aspects of Contingent Valuation Methods, edited by R. Kopp, W. Pommerhene, and N. Schwartz, 127–163. Amsterdam: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Carson, R.T., and M. Czajkowski. 2014. “The Discrete Choice Experiment Approach to Environmental Contingent Valuation.” In Handbook of choice modelling, edited by S. Hess, and A. Daly, 202–235. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Carson, R.T., N.E. Flores, K.M. Martin, and J.L. Wright. 1996. “Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-public Goods.” Land Economics 72 (1): 80–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson, R.T., N.E. Flores, and R.C. Mitchell. 2001. “Theory and Measurement of Passive-Use Value.” In Valuing Environmental Preferences, edited by I.J. Bateman, and K.G. Willis, 17–41. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Carson, R.T., T. Groves, and J.A. List. 2014. “Consequentiality: A Theoretical and Experimental Exploration of a Single Binary Choice.” Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 1 (1/2): 171–207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson, R.T., M. Hanemann, and R.C. Mitchell. 1987. “The Use of Simulated Political Markets to Value Public Goods.” Discussion Paper 87-7. San Diego: Department of Economics, University of California.
   Google Scholar
• Carson, R.T., and R.C. Mitchell. 1993. “The Issue of Scope in Contingent Valuation Studies.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75 (5): 1263–1267.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson, R., and T. Groves. 2007. “Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions.” Environmental and Resource Economics 37 (1): 181–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Champ, P., and R. Bishop. 2001. “Donation Payment Mechanisms and Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias.” Environmental and Resource Economics 19 (4): 383–402.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Champ, P., R. Bishop, T. Brown, and D. McCollum. 1997. “Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Non-use Benefits from Public Goods.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33 (2): 151–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Champ, P., and T. Brown. 1997. “A Comparison of Contingent and Actual Voting Behavior.” In Proceedings from W-133 Benefits and Cost Transfer in Natural Resource Planning, 10th Interim Report, 77–98. Rocky Mountain Research Station, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
   Google Scholar
• Champ, P., R. Moore, and R. Bishop. 2009. “A Comparison of Approaches to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 38 (2): 166–180.
   Google Scholar
• Chang, J.B., J.L. Lusk, and F.B. Norwood. 2009. “How Closely Do Hypothetical Surveys and Laboratory Experiments Predict Field Behavior?” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91 (2): 518–534.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi, A.S., B.W. Ritchie, F. Papandrea, and J. Bennett. 2010. “Economic Valuation of Cultural Heritage Sites: A Choice Modeling Approach.” Tourism Management 31 (2): 213–220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chowdhury, S., J.V. Meenakshi, K.I. Tomlins, and C. Owori. 2011. “Are Consumers in Developing Countries Willing to Pay More for Micronutrient-Dense Biofortified Foods? Evidence from a Field Experiment in Uganda.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 93 (1): 83–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke, P.M. 2002. “Testing the Convergent Validity of the Contingent Valuation and Travel Cost Methods in Valuing the Benefits of Health Care.” Health Economics 11 (2): 117–127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins, J.P., and C.A. Vossler. 2009. “Incentive Compatibility Tests of Choice Experiment Value Elicitation Questions.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 58 (2): 226–235.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cummings, R.G., S. Elliott, G.W. Harrison, and J.J. Murphy. 1997. “Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible?” Journal of Political Economy 105 (3): 609–621.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cummings, R.G., G.W. Harrison, and E.E. Rutstrom. 1995. “Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?” American Economic Review 85 (1): 260–266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cummings, R.G., and L.O. Taylor. 1998. “Does Realism Matter in Contingent Valuation Surveys?” Land Economics 74 (2): 203–215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cummings, R.G., and L.O. Taylor. 1999. “Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method.” American Economic Review 89 (3): 649–665.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Czajkowski, M., and N. Hanley. 2009. “Using Labels to Investigate Scope Effects in Stated Preference Methods.” Environmental and Resource Economics 44 (4): 521–535.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Czajkowski, M., N. Hanley, and J. LaRiviere. 2014. “The Effects of Experience on Preferences: Theory and Empirics for Environmental Public Goods.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 97 (1): 333–351.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Czajkowski, M., C.A. Vossler, W. Budziński, A. Wiśniewska, and E. Zawojska. 2015. “Addressing Empirical Challenges Related to the Incentive Compatibility of Stated Preference Methods.” Working Papers No. 31/2015 (179). Warsaw: Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
   Google Scholar
• de-Magistris, T., A. Gracia, and J. R. M. Nayga. 2013. “On the Use of Honesty Priming Tasks to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 95 (5): 1136–1154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeShazo, J.R. 2002. “Designing Transactions Without Framing Effects in Iterative Question Formats.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43: 360–385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diamond, P.A., and J.A. Hausman. 1994. “Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 (4): 45–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diamond, P. 1996. “Testing the Internal Consistency of Contingent Valuation Surveys.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30 (3): 337–347.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickie, M., A. Fisher, and S. Gerking. 1987. “Market Transactions and Hypothetical Demand Data: A Comparative Study.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 82 (397): 69–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duffield, J.W., and D.A. Patterson. 1992. “Field Testing Existence Values: Comparison of Hypothetical and Cash Transaction Values.” Benefits and Costs in Natural Resource Plannng, 5th Report. Western Regional Research Publication W-133, compiled by B. Rettig, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University.
   Google Scholar
• Ethier, R.G., G.L. Poe, W. Schulze, and J.E. Clark. 2000. “A Comparison of Hypothetical Phone and Mail Contingent Valuation Responses for Green-Pricing Electricity Programs.” Land Economics 76 (1): 54–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farquharson, R. 1969. Theory of Voting. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ferrini, S., M. Schaafsma, and I.J. Bateman. 2014. “Revealed and Stated Preference Valuation and Transfer: A Within-Sample Comparison of Water Quality Improvement Values.” Water Resources Research 50 (6): 4746–4759.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fifer, S., J. Rose, and S. Greaves. 2014. “Hypothetical Bias in Stated Choice Experiments: Is It a Problem? And If So, How Do We Deal with It?” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 61: 164–177.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foster, V., I.J. Bateman, and D. Harley. 1997. “Real and Hypothetical Willingness to Pay for Environmental Preservation: A Non-experimental Comparison.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 48 (2): 123–138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frykblom, P. 1997. “Hypothetical Question Modes and Real Willingness to Pay.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 34 (3): 275–287.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Getzner, M. 2000. “Hypothetical and Real Economic Commitments, and Social Status, in Valuing a Species Protection Programme.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 43 (4): 541–559.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbard, A. 1973. “Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result.” Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 41: 587–601.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heberlein, T.A., M.A. Wilson, R.C. Bishop, and N.C. Schaeffer. 2005. “Rethinking the Scope Test as a Criterion for Validity in Contingent Valuation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 50 (1): 1–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hensher, D.A., J.M. Rose, and W.H. Greene. 2005. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Herriges, J.A., and J.F. Shogren. 1996. “Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30 (1): 112–131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herriges, J., C. Kling, C.-C. Liu, and J. Tobias. 2010. “What Are the Consequences of Consequentiality?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 59 (1): 67–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoehn, J.P., and A. Randall. 1987. “A Satisfactory Benefit Cost Indicator from Contingent Valuation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 14 (3): 226–247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hudson, D., R.K. Gallardo, and T.R. Hanson. 2012. “A Comparison of Choice Experiments and Actual Grocery Store Behavior: An Empirical Application to Seafood Products.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 44 (1): 49–62.
   Google Scholar
• Hwang, J., D.R. Petrolia, and M.G. Interis. 2014. “Valuation, Consequentiality, and Opt-Out Responses to Stated Preference Surveys.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 43 (3): 471–488.
   Google Scholar
• Isacsson, G. 2007. “The Trade Off Between Time and Money: Is There a Difference Between Real and Hypothetical Choices?” Working Papers No. 2007:3. Linköping: Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Jacquemet, N., R.-V. Joule, S. Luchini, and J.F. Shogren. 2013. “Preference Elicitation Under Oath.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 65 (1): 110–132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johannesson, M. 1997. “Some Further Experimental Results on Hypothetical Versus Real Willingness to Pay.” Applied Economics Letters 4 (8): 535–536.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johannesson, M., B. Liljas, and P.-O. Johansson. 1998. “An Experimental Comparison of Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions and Real Purchase Decisions.” Applied Economics 30 (5): 643–647.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johansson-Stenman, O., and H. Svedsäter. 2008. “Measuring Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments: The Importance of Cognitive Consistency.” The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 8 (1): 1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston, R.J. 2006. “Is Hypothetical Bias Universal? Validating Contingent Valuation Responses Using a Binding Public Referendum.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 52 (1): 469–481.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston, R., M. Ranson, E. Besedin, and E. Helm. 2006. “What Determines Willingness to Pay per Fish? A Meta-analysis of Recreational Fishing Values.” Marine Resource Economics 21 (1): 1–32.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., and J.L. Knetsch. 1992. “Valuing Public Goods: The Purchase of Moral Satisfaction.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22 (1): 57–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanninen, B.J. 2007. Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Stated Choice Studies: A Common Sense Approach to Theory and Practice. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kealy, M.J., J.F. Dovidio, and M.L. Rockel. 1988. “Accuracy in Valuation Is a Matter of Degree.” Land Economics 64 (2): 158–171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kesternich, I., F. Heiss, D. McFadden, and J. Winter. 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 32 (6): 1313–1324.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kling, C.L., D.J. Phaneuf, and J. Zhao. 2012. “From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better than No Number?” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 26 (4): 3–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knetsch, J.L., and R.K. Davis. 1966. “Comparisons of Methods for Resource Evaluation.” In Water Research, edited by A.V. Kneese, and S.C. Smith, 125–142. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press for Resources for the Future.
   Google Scholar
• Kochi, I., B. Hubbell, and R. Kramer. 2006. “An Empirical Bayes Approach to Combining and Comparing Estimates of the Value of a Statistical Life for Environmental Policy Analysis.” Environmental and Resource Economics 34 (3): 385–406.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krawczyk, M. 2012. “Testing for Hypothetical Bias in Willingness to Support a Reforestation Program.” Journal of Forest Economics 18 (4): 282–289.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurz, M. 1974. “Experimental Approach to the Determination of Demand for Public Goods.” Journal of Public Economics 3 (4): 329–348.
   Google Scholar
• Landry, C.E., and J.A. List. 2007. “Using Ex Ante Approaches to Obtain Credible Signals for Value in Contingent Markets: Evidence from the Field.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89 (2): 420–429.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LaRiviere, J., M. Czajkowski, N. Hanley, M. Aanesen, J. Falk-Petersen, and D. Tinch. 2014. “The Value of Familiarity: Effects of Knowledge and Objective Signals on Willingness to Pay for a Public Good.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 68 (2): 376–389.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• List, J.A., and C.A. Gallet. 2001. “What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?” Environmental and Resource Economics 20 (3): 241–254.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• List, J.A., and J.F. Shogren. 1998. “Calibration of the Difference Between Actual and Hypothetical Valuations in a Field Experiment.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 37 (2): 193–206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• List, J.A., P. Sinha, and M.H. Taylor. 2006. “Using Choice Experiments to Value Non-market Goods and Services: Evidence from Field Experiments.” Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy 6 (2): 1–37.
   Google Scholar
• Little, J., and R. Berrens. 2004. “Explaining Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values: Further Investigation Using Meta-analysis.” Economics Bulletin 3 (6): 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Loomis, J.B. 2014. “Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 39 (1): 34–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loomis, J.B., P. Bell, H. Cooney, and C. Asmus. 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 (3): 697–712.
   Google Scholar
• Loomis, J.B., T. Brown, B. Lucero, and G. Peterson. 1997. “Evaluating the Validity of the Dichotomous Choice Question Format in Contingent Valuation.” Environmental and Resource Economics 10 (2): 109–123.
   Google Scholar
• Loomis, J.B., and A. Gonzalez-Caban. 1997. “Comparing the Economic Value of Reducing Fire Risk to Spotted Owl Habitat in California and Oregon.” Forest Science 43 (4): 473–482.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loomis, J.B., C. Pierce, and M. Manfredo. 2000. “Using the Demand for Hunting Licences to Evaluate Contingent Valuation Estimates of Willingness to Pay.” Applied Economics Letters 7 (7): 435–438.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louviere, J.J., D.A. Hensher, and J.D. Swait. 2006. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Luchini, S., and V. Watson. 2014. “Are Choice Experiments Reliable? Evidence from the Lab.” Economics Letters 124 (1): 9–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lusk, J.L., J.R. Pruitt, and F.B. Norwood. 2006. “External Validity of a Framed Field Experiment.” Economics Letters 93 (2): 285–290.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lusk, J.L., and T.C. Schroeder. 2004. “Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86 (2): 467–482.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacMillan, D., T. Smart, and A. Thorburn. 1999. “A Field Experiment Involving Cash and Hypothetical Charitable Donations.” Environmental and Resource Economics 14 (3): 399–412.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitani, Y., and N.E. Flores. 2009. “Demand Revelation, Hypothetical Bias, and Threshold Public Goods Provision.” Environmental and Resource Economics 44 (2): 231–243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitani, Y., and N.E. Flores. 2012. “Robustness Tests of Incentive Compatible Referenda: Consequential Probability, Group Size, and Value-Cost Difference.” 19th Annual Conference of European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Prague, June 27–30.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, R.C., and R.T. Carson. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Methods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
   Google Scholar
• Mørkbak, M.R., and S.B. Olsen. 2014. “A Within-Sample Investigation of Test–Retest Reliability in Choice Experiment Surveys with Real Economic Incentives.” Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 59 (3): 375–392.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moser, R., R. Raffaelli, and S. Notaro. 2014. “Testing Hypothetical Bias with a Real Choice Experiment Using Respondents' Own Money.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 41 (1): 25–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mozumder, P., and R. Berrens. 2007. “Investigating Hypothetical Bias: Induced-Value Tests of the Referendum Voting Mechanism with Uncertainty.” Applied Economics Letters 14 (10): 705–709.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy, J.J., P.G. Allen, T. Stevens, and D. Weatherhead. 2005. “A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation.” Environmental and Resource Economics 30 (3): 313–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy, J.J., T. Stevens, and D. Weatherhead. 2005. “Is Cheap Talk Effective at Eliminating Hypothetical Bias in a Provision Point Mechanism?” Environmental and Resource Economics 30 (3): 327–343.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy, J.J., T. Stevens, and L. Yadav. 2010. “A Comparison of Induced Value and Home-Grown Value Experiments to Test for Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation.” Environmental and Resource Economics 47 (1): 111–123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neill, H.R., R.G. Cummings, P.T. Ganderton, G.W. Harrison, and T. McGuckin. 1994. “Hypothetical Surveys and Real Economic Commitments.” Land Economics 70 (2): 145–154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nepal, M., R. Berrens, and A.K. Bohara. 2009. “Assessing Perceived Consequentiality: Evidence from a Contingent Valuation Survey on Global Climate Change.” International Journal of Ecological Economics and Statistics 14 (P09): 14–29.
   Google Scholar
• Nocera, S., H. Telser, and D. Bonato. 2003. The Contingent Valuation Method in Health Care. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Norwood, F.B., and J.L. Lusk. 2011. “Social Desirability Bias in Real, Hypothetical, and Inferred Valuation Experiments.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 93 (2): 528–534.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paradiso, M., and A. Trisorio. 2001. “The Effect of Knowledge on the Disparity Between Hypothetical and Real Willingness to Pay.” Applied Economics 33 (11): 1359–1364.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poe, G.L., J.E. Clark, D. Rondeau, and W. Schulze. 2002. “Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation.” Environmental and Resource Economics 23 (1): 105–131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poe, G.L., and C.A. Vossler. 2011. “Consequentiality and Contingent Values: An Emerging Paradigm.” In The International Handbook on Non-Market Environmental Valuation, edited by J. Bennett, 122–141. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Polomé, P. 2003. “Experimental Evidence on Deliberate Misrepresentation in Referendum Contingent Valuation.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 52 (3): 387–401.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasmusen, E. 1989. Games and Information: An Introduction to Game Theory. New York: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Ready, R.C., P. Champ, and J.L. Lawton. 2010. “Using Respondent Uncertainty to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in a Stated Choice Experiment.” Land Economics 86 (2): 363–381.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rolfe, J., and B. Dyack. 2010. “Testing for Convergent Validity Between Travel Cost and Contingent Valuation Estimates of Recreation Values in the Coorong, Australia.” Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 54 (4): 583–599.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rollins, K., and A. Lyke. 1998. “The Case for Diminishing Marginal Existence Values.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36 (3): 324–344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenberger, R.S., and J.B. Loomis. 2000. “Using Meta‐analysis for Benefit Transfer: In‐Sample Convergent Validity Tests of an Outdoor Recreation Database.” Water Resources Research 36 (4): 1097–1107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan, M., E. Mentzakis, S. Jareinpituk, and J. Cairns. 2016. “External Validity of Contingent Valuation: Comparing Hypothetical and Actual Payments.” Health Economics. doi:10.1002/hec.3436
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Satterthwaite, M.A. 1975. “Strategy-Proofness and Arrow's Conditions: Existence and Correspondence Theorems of Voting Procedures and Social Welfare Functions.” Journal of Economic Theory 10 (2): 187–217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schläpfer, F., A. Roschewitz, and N. Hanley. 2004. “Validation of Stated Preferences for Public Goods: A Comparison of Contingent Valuation Survey Response and Voting Behaviour.” Ecological Economics 52 (1–2): 1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seip, K., and J. Strand. 1992. “Willingness to Pay for Environmental Goods in Norway: A Contingent Valuation Study with Real Payment.” Environmental and Resource Economics 2 (1): 91–106.
   Google Scholar
• Shogren, J.F., J.A. Fox, D.J. Hayes, and J. Roosen. 1999. “Observed for Food Safety in Retail, Survey, and Auction Markets.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81 (5): 1192–1199.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shrestha, R.K., and J.B. Loomis. 2003. “Meta-analytic Benefit Transfer of Outdoor Recreation Economic Values: Testing Out-of-Sample Convergent Validity.” Environmental and Resource Economics 25 (1): 79–100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinden, J.A. 1988. “Empirical Tests of Hypothetical Bias in Consumer's Surplus Surveys.” Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics 32 (2–3): 98–112.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, V.K., and C. Mansfield. 1998. “Buying Time: Real and Hypothetical Offers.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36 (3): 209–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spencer, M.A., S.K. Swallow, and C.J. Miller. 1998. “Valuing Water Quality Monitoring: A Contingent Valuation Experiment Involving Hypothetical and Real Payments.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 27 (1): 28–42.
   Google Scholar
• Stefani, G., and R. Scarpa. 2009. “The Referendum Incentive Compatibility Hypothesis: Some New Results Using Information Messages.” Working Papers in Economics No. 07/10. Hamilton: Department of Economics, University of Waikato.
   Google Scholar
• Swallow, B.M., and M. Woudyalew. 1994. “Evaluating Willingness to Contribute to a Local Public Good: Application of Contingent Valuation to Tsetse Control in Ethiopia.” Ecological Economics 11 (2): 153–161.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, L.O. 1998. “Incentive Compatible Referenda and the Valuation of Environmental Goods.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 27 (2): 132–139.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, L.O., M. McKee, S.K. Laury, and R.G. Cummings. 2001. “Induced-Value Tests of the Referendum Voting Mechanism.” Economics Letters 71 (1): 61–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, L.O., M.D. Morrison, and K.J. Boyle. 2010. “Exchange Rules and the Incentive Compatibility of Choice Experiments.” Environmental and Resource Economics 47 (2): 197–220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veisten, K., and S. Navrud. 2006. “Contingent Valuation and Actual Payment for Voluntarily Provided Passive-Use Values: Assessing the Effect of an Induced Truth-Telling Mechanism and Elicitation Formats.” Applied Economics 38 (7): 735–756.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Volinskiy, D., W. Adamowicz, and M. Veeman. 2011. “Predicting Versus Testing: A Conditional Cross-Forecasting Accuracy Measure for Hypothetical Bias.” The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 55 (3): 429–450.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vossler, C.A., M. Doyon, and D. Rondeau. 2012. “Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments.” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 4 (4): 145–171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vossler, C.A., and M.F. Evans. 2009. “Bridging the Gap between the Field and the Lab: Environmental Goods, Policy Maker Input, and Consequentiality.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 58 (3): 338–345.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vossler, C.A., and J.S. Holladay. 2016. “Alternative Value Elicitation Formats in Contingent Valuation: A New Hope.” Working Paper No. 2016-02. Knoxville, TN: Department of Economics, University of Tennessee.
   Google Scholar
• Vossler, C.A., and J. Kerkvliet. 2003. “A Criterion Validity Test of the Contingent Valuation Method: Comparing Hypothetical and Actual Voting Behavior for a Public Referendum.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45 (3): 631–649.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vossler, C.A., J. Kerkvliet, S. Polasky, and O. Gainutdinova. 2003. “Externally Validating Contingent Valuation: An Open-Space Survey and Referendum in Corvallis, Oregon.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 51 (2): 261–277.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vossler, C.A., and M. McKee. 2006. “Induced-Value Tests of Contingent Valuation Elicitation Mechanisms.” Environmental and Resource Economics 35 (2): 137–168.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vossler, C.A., and S.B. Watson. 2013. “Understanding the Consequences of Consequentiality: Testing the Validity of Stated Preferences in the Field.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 86: 137–147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walsh, R.G., D.M. Johnson, and J.R. McKean. 1989. “Issues in Nonmarket Valuation and Policy Application: A Retrospective Glance.” Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 14 (1): 178–188.
   Google Scholar
• Walsh, R.G., D.M. Johnson, and J.R. McKean. 1992. “Benefit Transfer of Outdoor Recreation Demand Studies: 1968–1988.” Water Resources Research 28 (3): 707–713.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitehead, J.C., D.J. Phaneuf, C.F. Dumas, J. Herstine, J. Hill, and B. Buerger. 2010. “Convergent Validity of Revealed and Stated Recreation Behavior with Quality Change: A Comparison of Multiple and Single Site Demands.” Environmental and Resource Economics 45 (1): 91–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodward, R.T., and Y.S. Wui. 2000. “The Economic Value of Wetland Services: A Meta-analysis.” Ecological Economics 37 (2): 257–270.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yue, C., and C. Tong. 2009. “Organic or Local? Investigating Consumer Preference for Fresh Produce Using a Choice Experiment with Real Economic Incentives.” HortScience 44 (2): 366–371.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar