Real consequences matter: Why hypothetical biases in the valuation of time persist even in controlled lab experiments

Evaluation of the effectiveness of high-speed rail projects in the Czech Republic in terms integration potential

“…However, the value of time lost by commuting and its ratio to benefits is a very complicated issue (Batarce et al 2016). Due to the absence of a theoretically convincing hypothesis, the qualified estimates of the relevant values depend on the subjective choice of influencing factors, which practically makes it impossible to achieve a general consensus (Belenky 2011;Krčál et al 2019). Our approach to addressing this issue therefore prefers simplicity (for example, local transport is not included due to lack of relevant data), while emphasizing the specific context of the planned construction of HSR/FC, especially the links to potential time savings.…”

Stated choices and simulated experiences: Differences in the value of travel time and reliability

“…To accommodate for this, Krčál et al (2019), citing our original conference presentation 2 with preliminary findings of the research discussed herein, present an examination of VTT where the choice faced in the SP and RP setting were identical to allow for a more direct comparison. Note that the authors refer to RP results in their study, but the outcome was still experienced in a laboratory setting.…”

“…Nonetheless, they find that VTT in the SP experiment is significantly lower than that revealed by the RP component of the experiment. Krčál et al (2019) do not investigate VOR and instead of making all choices consequential, they randomly select only one choice task out of 80 to be consequential.…”

“…Our study contributes to the transport literature by investigating whether the absence of consequences in stated choice experiments are a source of hypothetical bias, i.e., we make a comparison with Class II data. Currently, only two such studies have been conducted in transport, namely Hultkrantz and Savsin (2017) and Krčál et al (2019), who both identified significant bias in VTT due to consequences. However, they used a between-respondent design such that differences may be due to sample differences across the two data collection types.…”

“…Brownstone et al (2000) examine hypothetical bias in the context of alternatively fuelled vehicles, compare stated preference choices to those made in a simulated evacuation scenario, and the following authors examine differences between SP and RP data in terms of VTT and willingness to pay: Beck et al (2016), Brownstone et al (2000), Brownstone et al (2005), Fifer et al (2014, Ghosh (2001), Hultkrantz & Savsin (2018), Li et al, (2020), Nielsen (2004), andPeer et al (2014). As discussed previously, there exist only two studies that examine both VTT and VOR in SP and RP contexts Small 2005, Small et al 2005), and one that addresses some of the limitations in previous SP and RP comparisons in the context of VTT (Krčál et al, 2019). In the majority of these studies, a significant bias between SP and RP contexts was observed though the direction of the bias was not consistent.…”