Experimental evidence on deliberate misrepresentation in referendum contingent valuation

Polomé, Philippe

doi:10.1016/s0167-2681(03)00024-6

Cited by 17 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, when the focus is put on consequentiality of the survey, the evidence supports the view that one-shot dichotomous choice stated preference methods possess criterion validity (Carson et al, 2004;Johnston, 2006;Landry and List, 2007;Vossler and Evans, 2009;Vossler and Kerkvliet, 2003). Furthermore some studies have identified behavior in consequential (but non-incentive compatible elicitation settings) that is consistent with mechanism design theory predictions (Bateman et al, 2008;Carson et al, 2004;Polomé, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 58%

Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments

Vossler

Doyon

Rondeau

2012

American Economic Journal: Microeconomics

213

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Résumé / AbstractCette étude s'intéresse à des aspects méthodologiques associés à l'utilisation d'expériences avec choix discrets pour évaluer des biens publics. Nous avons développé un modèle explicite de jeux théoriques pour des décisions individuelles à des séries de choix, avec conditions générales sous lesquelles un questionnaire avec des choix binaires répétés incite la révélation des valeurs. Ce développement théorique est suivi d'expériences terrains avec traitements qui couvrent le spectre des incitatifs de la révélation des valeurs, passant de la décision avec mise en place réelle du projet et paiements réels de la part des participants, à celle sans aucune conséquence financière directe et avec projets hypothétiques. Les résultats indiquent qu'il est possible d'obtenir une révélation des valeurs réelles en situation hypothétique, si les participants pensent que leurs décisions ont un potentiel d'impact significatif sur une éventuelle politique.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 58%

Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments

Vossler

Doyon

Rondeau

2012

American Economic Journal: Microeconomics

213

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They find no evidence of hypothetical bias in aggregate with any of these mechanisms, although similar to Taylor et al (2001) they do find evidence of decision errors at the individual level. There are also two studies that use induced values to test the properties of contingent valuation when individual costs are uncertain (Burton et al 2003;Polomé 2003), but neither has an inconsequential payment condition to draw inferences about hypothetical bias.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Induced Value and Home-Grown Value Experiments to Test for Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation

Murphy

Stevens

Yadav

2010

Environ Resource Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study tests the hypothesis that hypothetical bias may not be related to value elicitation; rather it may be a value formation problem. When participants are asked to indicate their willingness to pay for an induced value good, we find no evidence of hypothetical bias for three different commodity types (public good, private good, and publicly provided private good). However, when these same subjects are asked to value homegrown goods with no pre-assigned induced value using the same elicitation mechanism, hypothetical values are roughly double actual payments in all three cases. These results support the hypothesis that the process of forming values in a homegrown setting may be a key contributor to hypothetical bias.

show abstract

“…We implemented three treatments in both sessions. 22 At the beginning of each treatment, printed instructions were given to subjects and were read aloud to the entire room. Instructions explained all rules to determine the resulting payoff for each participant.…”

Section: Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…8 Results dealing with the manipulation and the social efficiency of mechanisms are also present in the experimental literature. For example, Polomé (2003) reports data on deliberate misrepresentation of preferences from a referendum contingent survey. He finds that only half of the subjects voted truthfully in the laboratory.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minority vs. Majority: An Experimental Study of Standardized Bids

Veszteg

2008

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Abstract Due to its simplicity the plurality voting system is frequently used to choose a common representative or project. Nevertheless it may fail to provide a socially efficient decision as a majority can outvote any minority even if the majority's gain does not compensate the loss suffered by the minority. In this paper we propose and study a simple mechanism that allows voters to reveal more information about their preferences over the candidates. According to the standardized bids mechanism voters report a bid for all the available projects. Terms of use: Documents inStandardization ensures the existence of equilibrium, and delivers incentives to overcome the problem of positive and negative exaggeration. Our experimental results show that the standardized bids mechanism performed well in the laboratory as it chose the efficient project in almost three quarters of the cases, and induced truthful reports of project rankings in approximately 90% of the cases. For a reference, we also present experimental results for the plurality voting scheme.

show abstract

Experimental evidence on deliberate misrepresentation in referendum contingent valuation

Cited by 17 publications

References 9 publications

Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments

Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments

A Comparison of Induced Value and Home-Grown Value Experiments to Test for Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation

Minority vs. Majority: An Experimental Study of Standardized Bids

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About