Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Hypothetical bias and framing effect in the valuation of private consumer goods Cover

Hypothetical bias and framing effect in the valuation of private consumer goods

Open Access
|Oct 2019

References

  1. Alfnes, F., Yue, C., & Jensen, H.H. (2010). Cognitive dissonance as a means of reducing hypothetical bias. European Review of Agricultural Economics 37(2), 147–163. doi:10.1093/erae/jbq012.
  2. Becker, G.M., Degroot, M.H., & Marschak, J. (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science 9(3), 226–232. doi:10.1002/bs.3830090304.
  3. Blumenschein, K., Johannesson, M., Blomquist, G.C., Liljas, B., & O’Conor, R.M. (1998). Experimental results on expressed certainty and hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Southern Economic Journal 65(1), 169. doi:10.2307/1061360
  4. Bohm, P., Lindén, J., & Sonnegård, J. (1997). Eliciting reservation prices: Becker– De Groot–Marschak mechanisms vs markets. The Economic Journal 107(443), 1079–1089. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0297.1997.tb00008.x
  5. Boyce, R.R., Brown, T.C., McClelland, G.H., Peterson, G.L., & Schulze, W.D. (1989), Experimental Evidence of Existence Values in Payment and Compensation Contexts, Proceedings of the Joint Meetings of the Western Committee on Benefits and Costs of Natural Resource Planning (W-133) 305–36.
  6. Braun, K.A., Gaeth, G.J., & Levin, I.P. (1997). Framing effects with differential impact: the role of attribute salience. ACR North American Advances NA-24. Retrieved from http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=8078
  7. Doyon, M., Saulais, L., Ruffieux, B., & Bweli, D. (2015). Hypothetical Bias for Private Goods: Does Cheap Talk Make a Difference? Retrieved from https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01254936/
  8. Foster, H., Burrows J. (2017), Hypothetical bias: a new meta-analysis, McFadden, D., Train, K (red.), Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods: A Comprehensive Critique 270–91.
  9. Hardisty, D.J., Johnson, E.J., & Weber, E.U. (2010). A dirty word or a dirty world? Psychological Science 21(1), 86–92. doi:10.1177/0956797609355572.
  10. Kagel, J.H. (1995). Auctions: A Survey of Experimental Research, Kagel, J., Roth, A.E. (eds.), Handbook of Experimental Economics 501–85.
  11. Kühberger, A, Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., & Perner, J. (1999). The effects of framing, reflection, probability, and payoff on risk preference in choice tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 78(3), 204–231.
  12. Kühberger, A., Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., & Perner, J. (2002). Framing decisions: Hypothetical and real. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 89(2), 1162-1175. doi: 10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00021-3
  13. Levin, I.P., Chapman, D.P., & Johnson, R.D. (1988). Confidence in judgments based on incomplete information: an investigation using both hypothetical and real gambles. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 1(1), 29–41. doi:10.1002/bdm.3960010105.
  14. Levin, I.P., & Gaeth, G.J. (1988). How Consumers Are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information Before and After Consuming the Product, Journal of Consumer Research 15 (3), 374–378, doi: 10.1086/209174
  15. Levin, I.P., Schneider, S.L., & Gaeth, G.J. (1998), All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76, 149-188. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1998.2804.
  16. 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. doi:10.1257/aer.91.5.1498.
  17. List, J.A. (2003). Using random nth price auctions to value non-market goods and services. Journal of Regulatory Economics 23(2), 193–205. doi:10.1023/A:1022259014448.
  18. List, J.A., & Gallet, C.A. (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.
  19. Moser, R., Raffaelli, R., & Notaro, S. (2014). Testing hypothetical bias with a real choice experiment using respondents’ own money. European Review of Agricultural Economics 41(1), 25–46. doi:10.1093/erae/jbt016.
  20. Murphy, J.J., Allen, P.G., Stevens, T.H., & Weatherhead, D. (2005). A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 30(3), 313–325. doi:10.1007/s10640-004-3332-z.
  21. Murphy, J.J., & Stevens, T.H. (2004). Contingent valuation, hypothetical bias, and experimental economics. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 33(2), 182–192. doi:10.1017/S1068280500005761.
  22. Paese, P.W. (1995). Effects of framing on actual time allocation decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 61(1), 67–76.
  23. Piñon, A., & Gambara, H. (2005). A meta-analytic review of framming effect: risky, attribute and goal framing. Psicothema 17(2), 325–331.
  24. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science (New York, N.Y.) 185(4157), 1124–1131. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.
  25. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The Framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science211 (4481), 453–58. doi:10.1126/science.7455683.
  26. Wertenbroch, K., & Skiera, B. (2002). Measuring consumers’ willingness to pay at the point of purchase. Journal of Marketing Research 39(2), 228–241. doi:10.1509/jmkr.39.2.228.19086.
  27. Wiseman, D.B., & Levin, I.P. (1996). Comparing risky decision making under conditions of real and hypothetical consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 66(3), 241–250.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ceej-2018-0024 | Journal eISSN: 2543-6821 | Journal ISSN: 2544-9001
Language: English
Page range: 260 - 269
Published on: Oct 13, 2019
Published by: Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2019 Magdalena Brzozowicz, published by Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.