Does the solemn oath lower WTP responses in a discrete choice experiment application to solar energy?

References

• Andersen, S., S. Ertaç, U. Gneezy, M. Hoffman, and J. A. List. 2011. “Stakes Matter in Ultimatum Games.” American Economic Review 101: 3427–39. doi: 10.1257/aer.101.7.3427
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balcombe, K., A. Chalak, and I. Fraser. 2009. “Model Selection for the Mixed Logit with Bayesian Estimation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 57: 226–237. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2008.06.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbose, G. L., N. R. Darghouth, K. H. LaCommare, D. Millstein, and J. Rand. 2018. “Tracking the Sun: Installed Price Trends for Distributed Photovoltaic Systems in the United States.” Edition (No. 1477384). doi:10.2172/1477384.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, M. J., S. Fifer, and J. M. Rose 2016. “Can You Ever be Certain? Reducing Hypothetical Bias in Stated Choice Experiments via Respondent Reported Choice Certainty.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 89: 149–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2016.04.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhat, C. R. 2001. “Quasi-random Maximum Simulated Likelihood Estimation of the Mixed Multinomial Logit Model.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 35: 677–693. doi:10.1016/S0191-2615(00)00014-X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron, T. A., G. L. Poe, R. G. Ethier, and W. D. Schulze. 2002. “Alternative Non-Market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44: 391–425. doi:10.1006/jeem.2001.1210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlsson, F., M. Kataria, A. Krupnick, E. Lampi, Å Löfgren, P. Qin, and T. Sterner. 2013. “The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth—A Multiple Country Test of an Oath Script.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 89: 105–121. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2013.02.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlsson, F., E. Lampi, and H. Yin. 2017. Reducing the Gap Between Stated and Real Behavior in Transportation Studies: The Use of an Oath Script. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
   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: 179–192. doi:10.1006/jeem.2000.1138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson, R. T., and T. Groves. 2007. “Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions.” Environmental and Resource Economics 37: 181–210. doi: 10.1007/s10640-007-9124-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson, R. T., and T. Groves. 2011. “15 Incentive and Information Properties of Preference Questions: Commentary and Extensions.” The International Handbook on Non-Market Environmental Valuation, 300–321. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
   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: 171–207. doi:10.1086/676450.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Champ, P. A., R. C. Bishop, T. C. Brown, and D. W. McCollum. 1997. “Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33: 151–162. doi: 10.1006/jeem.1997.0988
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Champ, P. A., R. Moore, and R. C. Bishop. 2009. “A Comparison of Approaches to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias.” Agricultural Economics Research Review 38 (2): 166–180.
   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: 649–665. doi: 10.1257/aer.89.3.649
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de-Magistris, T., A. Gracia, and R. M. Nayga. 2013. “On the Use of Honesty Priming Tasks to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 95: 1136–54. doi:10.1093/ajae/aat052.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de-Magistris, T., and S. Pascucci. 2012. “ Consumers Preferences for the Millennium Bugs. Does “Solemn Oath” Mitigate the Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiment?” 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12–14, Seattle, Washington. Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
   Google Scholar
• de-Magistris, T., and S. Pascucci. 2014. “The Effect of the Solemn Oath Script in Hypothetical Choice Experiment Survey: A Pilot Study.” Economics Letters 123: 252–255. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2014.02.016.
   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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2013.12.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guéguen, N., R.-V. Joule, S. Halimi-Falkowicz, A. Pascual, J. Fischer-Lokou, and M. Dufourcq-Brana. 2013. “I’m Free but I’ll Comply with Your Request: Generalization and Multidimensional Effects of the “Evoking Freedom” Technique.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 43: 116–137. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00986.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hensher, D. A. 2010. “Hypothetical Bias, Choice Experiments and Willingness to Pay.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 44: 735–752. doi:10.1016/j.trb.2009.12.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hensher, D. A., and W. H. Greene. 2011. “ Valuation of Travel Time Savings in WTP and Preference Space in the Presence of Taste and Scale Heterogeneity [WWW Document].” Accessed 26 January 2019 https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/lse/jtep/2011/00000045/00000003/art00008.
   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: 67–81. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2009.03.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hole, A. R. 2007. “Estimating Mixed Logit Models Using Maximum Simulated Likelihood.” The Stata Journal: Promoting Communications on Statistics and Stata 7: 388–401. doi: 10.1177/1536867X0700700306
   Google Scholar
• Hole, A. 2016. “ MIXLOGITWTP: Stata Module to Estimate Mixed Logit Models in WTP Space”.
   Google Scholar
• Hole, A. R., and J. R. Kolstad. 2012. “Mixed Logit Estimation of Willingness to pay Distributions: A Comparison of Models in Preference and WTP Space Using Data from a Health-Related Choice Experiment.” Empirical Economics 42: 445–469. doi:10.1007/s00181-011-0500-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howard, G., B. E. Roe, E. C. Nisbet, and J. F. Martin. 2017. “Hypothetical Bias Mitigation Techniques in Choice Experiments: Do Cheap Talk and Honesty Priming Effects Fade with Repeated Choices?” Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 4: 543–573. doi:10.1086/691593.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacquemet, N., A. James, S. Luchini, and J. F. Shogren. 2017. “Referenda Under Oath.” Environmental and Resource Economics 67: 479–504. doi: 10.1007/s10640-016-0023-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacquemet, N., R.-V. Joule, S. Luchini, and J. Shogren. 2009. “ Eliciting Preferences Under Oath.” CES Working Paper 09 (43).
   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: 110–132. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2012.05.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacquemet, N., S. Luchini, J. Rosaz, and J. F. Shogren. 2019. “Truth Telling Under Oath.” Management Science 65: 426–438. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2017.2892.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacquemet, N., S. Luchini, J. F. Shogren, and A. Zylbersztejn. 2018. “Coordination with Communication Under Oath.” Experimental Economics 21: 627–649. doi:10.1007/s10683-016-9508-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joule, R.-V., F. Girandola, and F. Bernard. 2007. “How can People be Induced to Willingly Change Their Behavior? The Path from Persuasive Communication to Binding Communication.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 1: 493–505. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00018.x
   Google Scholar
• Krinsky, I., and A. L. Robb. 1986. “On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 68: 715–719. doi:10.2307/1924536.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhfeld, W. F. 2010. Experimental Design: Efficiency, Coding, and Choice Designs. SAS Technical Documents TS-694C. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
   Google Scholar
• Kulik, J. A., and P. Carlino. 1987. “The Effect of Verbal Commitment and Treatment Choice on Medication Compliance in a Pediatric Setting.” Journal of Behavioral Medicine 10: 367–376. doi: 10.1007/BF00846476
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lanz, B., and A. Provins. 2013. “Valuing Local Environmental Amenity: Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Control for the Spatial Scope of Improvements.” Environmental and Resource Economics 56 (1): 105–130. doi: 10.1007/s10640-013-9648-9
   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. doi: 10.1023/A:1012791822804
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Little, J., and R. Berrens. 2004. “Explaining Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values: Further Investigation Using Meta-Analysis.” Economic Bulletin 3: 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Loomis, J. B. 2014. “2013 WAEA Keynote Address: Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 39 (1): 34–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lutzeyer, S., D. J. Phaneuf, and L. O. Taylor. 2018. “The Amenity Costs of Offshore Wind Farms: Evidence from a Choice Experiment.” Energy Economics 72: 621–639. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2018.03.020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahieu, P.-A., P. Riera, and M. Giergiczny. 2012. “The Influence of Cheap Talk on Willingness-to-Pay Ranges: Some Empirical Evidence from a Contingent Valuation Study.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 55: 753–763. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2011.626524
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mamkhezri, J. 2019. Market and Non-Market Valuation of Renewable Energy. 189–235.
   Google Scholar
• Mamkhezri, J., J. Thacher, and J. Chermak. 2020. “Consumer Preferences for Solar Energy: An Experimental Study.” The Energy Journal. doi:10.5547/01956574.41.5.jmam.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitani, Y., and N. E. Flores. 2014. “Hypothetical Bias Reconsidered: Payment and Provision Uncertainties in a Threshold Provision Mechanism.” Environmental and Resource Economics 59: 433–454. doi: 10.1007/s10640-013-9741-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pallak, M. S., D. A. Cook, and J. J. Sullivan. 1980. “Commitment and Energy Conservation.” Applied Social Psychology Annual 1: 235–253.
   Google Scholar
• Penn, Jerrod M, and W. Hu. 2018. “Understanding Hypothetical Bias: An Enhanced Meta-Analysis.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 100: 1186–1206. doi:10.1093/ajae/aay021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ready, R. C., P. A. Champ, and J. L. Lawton. 2010. “Using Respondent Uncertainty to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in a Stated Choice Experiment.” Land Economics 86 (2): 363–381. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.86.2.363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scarpa, R., M. Thiene, and K. Train. 2008. “Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90: 994–1010. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01155.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silva, A., R. M. Nayga Jr, B. L. Campbell, and J. L. Park. 2011. “Revisiting Cheap Talk with New Evidence from a Field Experiment.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 36 (2): 280–291.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sonnier, G., A. Ainslie, and T. Otter. 2007. “Heterogeneity Distributions of Willingness-to-Pay in Choice Models.” Quantitative Marketing and Economics 5: 313–331. doi:10.1007/s11129-007-9024-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens, T. H., M. Tabatabaei, and D. Lass. 2013. “Oaths and Hypothetical Bias.” Journal of Environmental Management 127: 135–141. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.04.038
   PubMed 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: 197–220. doi:10.1007/s10640-010-9371-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thacher, J., M. Marsee, H. Pitts, J. Hansen, J. Chermak, and B. Thomson. 2011. Assessing Customer Preferences and Willingness to Pay: A Handbook for Water Utilities, 73–74. Denver, CO: Water Environment Federation.
   Google Scholar
• Thiene, M., and R. Scarpa. 2009. “Deriving and Testing Efficient Estimates of WTP Distributions in Destination Choice Models.” Environmental and Resource Economics 44 (3): 379–395.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Train, E. K. 2000. Halton Sequences for Mixed Logit. UC Berkeley: Department of Economics. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6zs694tp.
   Google Scholar
• Train, K. E. 2009. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Train, K., and M. Weeks. 2005. “Discrete Choice Models in Preference Space and Willingness-to-Pay Space.” In Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics, The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources, edited by R. Scarpa, and A. Alberini, 1–16. Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/1-4020-3684-1_1.
   Google Scholar
• van Osch, S., S. Hynes, S. Freeman, and T. O’Higgins. 2019. “Estimating the Public’s Preferences for Sustainable Aquaculture: A Country Comparison.” Sustainability 11: 569. doi:10.3390/su11030569.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar