Aadland, D. & Caplan, A.J. (2003) Willingness to pay for curbside recycling with detection and mitigation of hypothetical bias. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85, 492–502.
Akter, S. & Bennett, J. (2013) Preference uncertainty in stated preference studies: facts and artefacts. Applied Economics, 45, 2107–2115.
- Alemu, M.H. & Olsen, S. (2018) ‘Linking Consumers’ food choice motives to their preferences for insect‐based food products: an application of integrated choice and latent variable model in an African context. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 70, 241–258.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Ami, D., Aprahamian, F., Chanel, O. & Luchini, S. (2011) A test of cheap talk in different hypothetical contexts: the case of air pollution. Environmental and Resource Economics, 50, 111–130.
Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G. & Prelec, D. (2003) Coherent arbitrariness: stable demand curves without stable preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 73–105.
Azevedo, C.D., Herriges, J.A. & Kling, C.L. (2003) Combining revealed and stated preferences: consistency tests and their interpretations. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85, 525–537.
Bansal, P., Daziano, R.A. & Achtnicht, M. (2018a) Comparison of parametric and semiparametric representations of unobserved preference heterogeneity in logit models. Journal of Choice Modelling, 27(1), 97–113.
- Bansal, P., Daziano, R.A. & Achtnicht, M. (2018b) Extending the logit‐mixed logit model for a combination of random and fixed parameters. Journal of Choice Modelling, 27(1), 88–96.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Barrage, L. & Lee, M.S. (2010) A penny for your thoughts: inducing truth‐telling in stated preference elicitation. Economics Letters, 106, 140–142.
Bazzani, C., Palma, M.A. & Nayga, R.M. (2018) On the use of flexible mixing distributions in WTP space: an induced value choice experiment. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 62(2), 185–198.
Beck, M.J., Fifer, S. & Rose, J.M. (2016) Can you ever be certain? Reducing hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments via respondent reported choice certainty. Transportation Research Part B, 89, 149–167.
Beck, M.J., Rose, J.M. & Hensher, D.A. (2013) Consistently inconsistent: the role of certainty, acceptability and scale in automobile choice. Transportation Research Part E, 56, 81–93.
Bishop, R.C. & Boyle, K.J. (2019) Reliability and validity in nonmarket valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 72, 559–582.
Blomquist, G.C., Blumenschein, K. & Magnus, J. (2009) Eliciting willingness to pay without bias using follow‐up certainty statements: comparisons between probably/definitely and a 10‐point certainty scale. Environmental and Resource Economics, 43(4), 473–502.
Blumenschein, K., Blomquist, G.C., Johannesson, M., Horn, N. & Freeman, P. (2008) Eliciting willingness to pay without bias: evidence from a field experiment. Economic Journal, 118, 114–137.
- Blumenschein, K., Johannesson, M., Blomquist, G.C., Liljas et al(1998) Experimental results on expressed certainty and hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Southern Economic Journal, 65(1), 169–177.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Blumenschein, K., Johannesson, M., Yokoyama, K.K., and Freeman et al(2001) Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment. Journal of Health Economics, 20(3), 441–457.
- Bonsall, P. & Lythgoe, B. (2009) Factors affecting the amount of effort expended in responding to questions in behavioral choice experiments. Journal of Choice Modelling, 2(2), 216–236.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Bosworth, R. & Taylor, L.O. (2012) Hypothetical bias in choice experiments: is cheap talk effective at eliminating bias on the intensive and extensive margin of choice. The B. E. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy, 12, 1–26.
Broadbent, C.D. (2014) Evaluating mitigation and calibration techniques for hypothetical bias in choice experiments. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57(12), 1831–1848.
Brooks, K. & Lusk, J.L. (2010) Stated and revealed preferences for organic and cloned milk: combining choice experiment and scanner data. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 92(4), 1229–1241.
Brown, T.C., Ajzen, I. & Hrubes, D. (2003) Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 46(2), 353–361.
Bush, G., Colombo, S. & Hanley, N. (2009) Should all choices count? Using the cut‐offs approach to edit responses in a choice experiment. Environmental and Resource Economics, 44(3), 397–414.
Caputo, V., Scarpa, R., Nayga, R.M. & Ortega, D.L. (2017) Are Preferences for Food Quality Attributes Really Normally Distributed? An Analysis Using Flexible Mixing Distributions. Journal of Choice Modelling, 28, 10–27.
Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P. & Lagerkvist, C.J. (2005) Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments. Economics Letters, 89, 147–152.
- Carlsson, F., Mørkbak, M. & Olsen, S. (2012) The first time is the hardest: a test of ordering effects in choice experiments. Journal of Choice Modelling, 5(2), 19–37.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Carson, R.T. & Groves, T. (2007) Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics, 37, 181–210.
Champ, P.A., Bishop, R.C., Brown, T.C. & McCollum, D.W. (1997) Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 33(2), 151–162.
Champ, P.A., Moore, R. & Bishop, R.C. (2009) A comparison of approaches to mitigate hypothetical bias. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 38, 166–180.
Cherry, T.L., Frykblom, P. & Shogren, J.F. (2002) Hardnose the dictator. American Economic Review, 92(4), 1218–1221.
- Chowdhury, S., Meenakshi, J.V., Tomlins, K. & Owori, C. (2011) Are consumers in developing countries willing‐to‐pay more for micronutrient‐dense biofortified foods? Evidence from a field experiment in Uganda. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 93(1), 83–97.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Colombo, S., Glenk, K. & Rocamora‐Montiel, B. (2016) Analysis of choice inconsistencies in on‐line choice experiments: impact on welfare measures. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 43(2), 271–302.
- Czajkowski, M. & Budziński, W. (2015) An insight into the numerical simulation bias – a comparison of efficiency and performance of different types of quasi Monte Carlo simulation methods under a wide range of experimental conditions. In: Environmental Choice Modelling Conference, (Copenhagen, 2015).
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Czajkowski, M., Vossler, C.A., Budziński, W., Wiśniewska, A. & Zawojska, E. (2017) Addressing empirical challenges related to the incentive compatibility of stated preference methods. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 142, 47–63.
Doyon, M., Saulais, L., Ruffieux, B. & Bweli, D. (2015) Hypothetical bias for private goods: does cheap talk make a difference? Theoretical Economics Letters, 5, 749–756.
Faccioli, M., Czajkowski, M., Glenk, K. & Martin‐Ortega, J. 2020. Environmental attitudes and place identity as determinants of preferences for ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 174, (2020) article 106600.
- FeldmanHall, O., Mobbs, D., Evans, D., Hiscox, L., Navrady, L. & Dalgleish, T. (2012b) What we say and what we do: the relationship between real and hypothetical moral choices. Cognition, 123(3), 434–441.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Fox, J.A., Shogren, J.F., Hayes, D.J. & Kliebenstein, J.B. (1998) CVM‐X: calibrating contingent values with experimental auction markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80, 455–465.
Franceschinis, C., Scarpa, R. & Thiene, M. (2017) A Monte Carlo Evaluation of the Logit‐Mixed Logit under Asymmetry and Multimodality, Working Papers in Economics 17/23. (University of Waikato, 2017).
Gibbard, A. (1973) Manipulation of voting schemes: a general result. Econometrica, 41(4), 587.
Glenk, K., Meyerhoff, J., Akaichi, F. & Martin‐Ortega, J. (2019) Revisiting cost vector effects in discrete choice experiments. Resource and Energy Economics, 57, 135–155.
Granado‐Díaz, R., Gómez‐Limón, J.A., Rodríguez‐Entrena, M. & Villanueva, A.J. (2020) Spatial analysis of demand for sparsely located ecosystem services using alternative index approaches. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 47(2), 752–784.
Grebitus, C., Lusk, J.L. & Nayga Jr, R.M. (2013) Explaining differences in real and hypothetical experimental auctions and choice experiments with personality. Journal of Economic Psychology, 36, 11–26.
Groothuis, P.A., Mohr, T.M., Whitehead, J.C. & Cockerill, K. (2017) Endogenous consequentiality in stated preference referendum data: the influence of the randomly assigned tax amount. Land Economics, 93, 258–268.
Haghani, M., Bliemer, M.C.J., Rose, J.M., Oppewal, H. & Lancsar, E. (2021) Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: part I. Integrative Synthesis of Empirical Evidence and Conceptualisation of External Validity. Journal of Choice Modelling, 41, 100309.
Hanley, N. & Czajkowski, M. (2019) The role of stated preference valuation methods in understanding choices and informing policy. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 13, 248–266.
- Hollander‐Blumoff, R. (2011) Intrinsic and extrinsic compliance motivations: comment on Feldmand Washington University. Journal of Law & Policy, 35, 53–67.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Jacquemet, N., Joule, R.‐V., Luchini, S. & Shogren, J.F. (2013) Preference elicitation under oath. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 65, 110–132.
Johannesson, M., Liljas, B. & Johansson, P.O.(1998) An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions and real purchase decisions. Applied Economics, 30(5), 643–647.
- Johansson‐Stenman, O. & Svedsäter, H. (2012) Self‐image and valuation of moral goods: stated versus actual willingness to pay. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 84(3), 879–891.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Johnston, R.J., Boyle, K.J., Adamowicz, W., Bennett, J., Brouwer, R., Cameron, T.A. et al (2017) Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 4, 319–405.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Kang, M.J., Rangel, A., Camus, M. & Camerer, C.F. (2011) Hypothetical and real choice differentially activate common valuation areas. The Journal of Neuroscience, 31, 461–468.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Ladenburg, J. & Olsen, S. (2014) Augmenting short cheap talk scripts with a repeated Opt‐Uut reminder in choice experiment surveys. Resource and Energy Economics, 37, 39–63.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
LaRiviere, J., Czajkowski, M., Hanley, N., Aanesen, M., Falk‐Petersen, J. & Tinch, D. (2014) The value of familiarity: effects of knowledge and objective signals on willingness to pay for a public good. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 68, 376–389.
Liebe, U., Glenk, K., Von Meyer‐Hofer, M. & Spiller, A. (2019) A web survey application of real choice experiment. Journal of Choice Modelling, 33, article 100150.
List, J.A., Sinha, P. & Taylor, M.H. (2006) Using choice experiments to value non market goods and services: evidence from field experiments. Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 6, 1–37.
Lloyd‐Smith, P., Adamowicz, W.L. & Dupont, D. (2019) Incorporating stated consequentiality questions in stated preference research. Land Economics, 95, 293–306.
Longo, A., Hoyos, D. & Markandya, A. (2015) Sequence effects in the valuation of multiple environmental programs using the contingent valuation method. Land Economics, 91(1), 20–35.
Loomis, J. (2011) What's to know about hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation studies? Journal of Economic Surveys, 25, 363–370.
Loomis, J.B. (2014) Strategies for overcoming hypothetical bias in stated preference surveys. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 39, 34–46.
- Lusk, J.L. (2003) Effects of cheap talk on consumer willingness‐ to‐pay for golden rice. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(4), 840–856.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Lusk, J.L. & Schroeder, T.C. (2004) Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86, 467–482.
McFadden, D. & Train, K. (2000) Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 15(5), 447–470.
Meginnis, K., Burton, M., Chan, R. & Rigby, D. (2021) Strategic bias in discrete choice experiments. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 109, 102163.
Meyerhoff, J. & Glenk, K. (2015) Learning how to choose—effects of instructional choice sets in discrete choice experiments. Resource and Energy Economics, 41, 122–142.
- Morrison, M. & Brown, T.C. (2009) Testing the effectiveness of certainty scales, cheap talk, and dissonance‐minimization in reducing hypothetical bias in contingent valuation studies. Environmental and Resource Economics, 44, 307–326.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
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.
- Murphy, J.J., Allen, P.G., Stevens, T.H. & Weatherhead, D. (2005) A meta‐analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental & Resource Economics, 30(3), 313–325.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Murphy, J.J., Stevens, T.H. & Weatherhead, D. (2005) Is cheap talk effective at eliminating hypothetical bias in a provision point mechanism? Environmental and Resource Economics, 30(3), 327–343.
Needham, K. & Hanley, N. (2020) Prior knowledge, familiarity and stated policy consequentiality in contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 9, 1–20.
Norwood, F.B. (2005) Can calibration reconcile stated and observed preferences? Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 37(1), 237–248.
Penn, J. & Hu, W. (2019) Cheap talk efficacy under potential and actual hypothetical bias: a meta‐analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 96, 22–35.
Poe, G.L., Clarke, J., Rondeau, D. & Schulze, W.D. (2002) Provision point mechanisms and field validity tests of contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 23(1), 105–131.
Ready, R.C., Champ, P.A. & Lawton, J.L. (2010) Using respondent uncertainty to mitigate hypothetical bias in a stated choice experiment. Land Economics, 86(2), 363–381.
Revelt, D. & Train, K. (1998) Mixed logit with repeated choices: households’ choices of appliance efficiency level’. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4), 647–657.
Roe, B., Boyle, K.J. & Teisl, M.F. (1996) Using conjoint analysis to derive estimates of compensating variation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 31, 145–159.
- Rolfe, J. & Wang, X. (2011) Dealing with scale and scope issues in stated preference experiments. In: Bennett, J. (Ed.) International Handbook on Non‐Market Environmental Valuation. (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 254–273).
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Rolfe, J. & Windle, J. (2003) Valuing the protection of aboriginal cultural heritage sites. The Economic Record, 79, s85–s95.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Satterthwaite, M.A. (1975) Strategy‐proofness and Arrow’s conditions: existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions. Journal of Economic Theory, 10(2), 187–217.
- Sælensminde, K. (2003) Embedding effect in valuation of non‐market‐goods. Transport Policy, 10(2003), 59–72.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Silz‐Carson, K., Chilton, S.M., Hutchinson, W.G. & Scarpa, R. (2020) Public resource allocation, strategic behavior, and status quo bias in choice experiments. Public choice, 185(1–2), 1–19.
Sun, L. & Cornelis van Kooten, G. (2009) Comparing fuzzy and probabilistic approaches to preference uncertainty in non‐market valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 42, 471–489.
- Swait, J. (2001) A non‐compensatory choice model incorporating attribute cut‐offs. Transportation Research B, 35, 903–928.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Tonsor, G.T. & Shupp, R.S. (2011) Cheap talk scripts and online choice experiments: looking beyond the mean. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 93(4), 1015–1031.
Train, K. (2016) Mixed logit with a flexible mixing distribution. Journal of Choice Modelling, 19, 40–53.
Train, K.E. (2009) Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, 2nd edition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Varela, E., Mahieu, P.‐A., Giergiczny, M., Riera, P. & Soliño, M. (2014) Testing the single opt out reminder in choice experiments: an application to fuel break management in Spain. Journal of Forest Economics, 20, 212–222.
Vossler, A.C. & Holladay, J.S. (2018) Alternative value elicitation formats in contingent valuation: mechanism design and convergent validity. Journal of Public Economics, 165, 133–145.
Vossler, C.A., Doyon, M. & Rondeau, D. (2012) Truth in consequentiality: theory and field evidence on discrete choice experiments. American Economic Journal Microeconomics, 4, 145–171.
Weng, W., Morrison, M.D., Boyle, K.J., Boxall, P.C. & Rose, J. (2021) Effects of the number of alternatives in public good discrete choice experiments. Ecological Economics, 182, 106904.
- Whitehead, J.C. & Cherry, T.L. (2007) Willingness to pay for a green energy program: a comparison of ex‐ante and ex‐post hypothetical bias mitigation approaches. Resource and Energy Economics, 29, 247–261.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Zawojska, E. & Czajkowski, M. (2017) Re‐examining empirical evidence on stated preferences: Importance of incentive compatibility. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 6(4), 374–403.
Zawojska, E., Bartczak, A. & Czajkowski, M. (2019) Disentangling the effects of policy and payment consequentiality and risk attitudes on stated preferences. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 93, 63–84.