Show simple item record

FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHaghani, Milad
dc.contributor.authorBliemer, Michiel C. J.
dc.contributor.authorRose, John M.
dc.contributor.authorOppewal, Harmen
dc.contributor.authorLancsar, Emily
dc.date.accessioned2021-02-15T01:12:16Z
dc.date.available2021-02-15T01:12:16Z
dc.date.issued2021-02-15
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2123/24522
dc.description.abstractThe notion of hypothetical bias (HB) constitutes, arguably, the most fundamental issue in relation to the use of hypothetical survey methods. Whether or to what extent choices of survey participants and subsequent inferred estimates translate to real-world settings continues to be debated. While HB has been extensively studied in the broader context of contingent valuation, it is much less understood in relation to choice experiments (CE). This paper reviews the empirical evidence for HB in CE in various fields of applied economics and presents an integrative framework for how HB relates to external validity. Results suggest mixed evidence on the prevalence, extent and direction of HB as well as considerable context and measurement dependency. While HB is found to be an undeniable issue when conducting CEs, the empirical evidence on HB does not render CEs unable to represent real-world preferences. While health-related choice experiments often find negligible degrees of HB, experiments in consumer behaviour and transport domains suggest that significant degrees of HB are ubiquitous. Assessments of bias in environmental valuation studies provide mixed evidence. Also, across these disciplines many studies display HB in their total willingness to pay estimates and opt-in rates but not in their hypothetical marginal rates of substitution (subject to scale correction). Further, recent findings in psychology and brain imaging studies suggest neurocognitive mechanisms underlying HB that may explain some of the discrepancies and unexpected findings in the mainstream CE literature. The review also observes how the variety of operational definitions of HB prohibits consistent measurement of HB in CE. The paper further identifies major sources and catalogues explanations of HB as well as possible moderating factors. Finally, it explains how HB represents one component of the wider concept of external validity.en_AU
dc.language.isoenen_AU
dc.rightsCopyright All Rights Reserveden_AU
dc.subjectChoice experiment; stated preference; hypothetical bias; external validityen_AU
dc.titleHypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validityen_AU
dc.typeWorking Paperen_AU
dc.subject.asrc0104 Statisticsen_AU
dc.subject.asrc14 Economicsen_AU
dc.subject.asrc1403 Econometricsen_AU
dc.subject.asrc1507 Transportation and Freight Servicesen_AU
dc.relation.arcDP150103299
dc.relation.arcDP180103718
usyd.facultySeS faculties schools::The University of Sydney Business School::Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies (ITLS)en_AU
workflow.metadata.onlyNoen_AU


Show simple item record

Associated file/s

Associated collections

Show simple item record

There are no previous versions of the item available.