scholarly journals Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: a meta-analysis of the hypothetical bias

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 499-518 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonas Schmidt ◽  
Tammo H. A. Bijmolt
2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (52) ◽  
pp. 260-269
Author(s):  
Magdalena Brzozowicz

Abstract In a laboratory experiment, I examined two behavioural effects: hypothetical bias and the framing effect. I elicited willingness to pay (WTP) for a cosmetic product, and manipulated framing conditions (positive vs. negative attribute framing) and incentives to reveal the actual valuation (hypothetical vs. real). I demonstrated that hypothetical bias has a significant impact on WTP values; however, the framing effect has no effect on the valuation of the product. Similarly, I found no interaction between the two effects. This observation contributes to claims that hypothetical research methods lead to equally reliable data as those based on consequential choices.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. e0262130
Author(s):  
Magdalena Brzozowicz ◽  
Michał Krawczyk

We elicit willingness to pay for different types of consumption goods, systematically manipulating irrelevant anchors (high vs. low) and incentives to provide true valuations (hypothetical questions vs. Becker-DeGroot-Marschak mechanism). On top of a strong hypothetical bias, we find that anchors only make a substantial, significant difference in the case of hypothetical data, the first experiments to directly document such an interaction. This finding suggests that hypothetical market research methods may deliver lower quality data. Moreover, it contributes to the discussion examining the mechanism underlying the anchoring effect, suggesting it could partly be caused by insufficient conscious effort to drift away from the anchor.


Food Policy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 104 ◽  
pp. 102126
Author(s):  
Daniel A. Bass ◽  
Brandon R. McFadden ◽  
Kent D. Messer

Nutrients ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (8) ◽  
pp. 2677
Author(s):  
Anastasios Bastounis ◽  
John Buckell ◽  
Jamie Hartmann-Boyce ◽  
Brian Cook ◽  
Sarah King ◽  
...  

Food production is a major contributor to environmental damage. More environmentally sustainable foods could incur higher costs for consumers. In this review, we explore whether consumers are willing to pay (WTP) more for foods with environmental sustainability labels (‘ecolabels’). Six electronic databases were searched for experiments on consumers’ willingness to pay for ecolabelled food. Monetary values were converted to Purchasing Power Parity dollars and adjusted for country-specific inflation. Studies were meta-analysed and effect sizes with confidence intervals were calculated for the whole sample and for pre-specified subgroups defined as meat-dairy, seafood, and fruits-vegetables-nuts. Meta-regressions tested the role of label attributes and demographic characteristics on participants’ WTP. Forty-three discrete choice experiments (DCEs) with 41,777 participants were eligible for inclusion. Thirty-five DCEs (n = 35,725) had usable data for the meta-analysis. Participants were willing to pay a premium of 3.79 PPP$/kg (95%CI 2.7, 4.89, p ≤ 0.001) for ecolabelled foods. WTP was higher for organic labels compared to other labels. Women and people with lower levels of education expressed higher WTP. Ecolabels may increase consumers’ willingness to pay more for environmentally sustainable products and could be part of a strategy to encourage a transition to more sustainable diets.


1998 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 132-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura O. Taylor

Recent attempts to test the validity of the contingent valuation method have relied on laboratory-type experiments. In these experiments, willingness to pay responses in hypothetical choice experiments are compared with responses from choice experiments requiring actual payments. Often evidence of hypothetical bias is found. Critical for these experimental tests of hypothetical surveys is that the methodology used to elicit willingness to pay from subjects in the real-payment experiment be demand revealing. If it is not, then differences in responses to hypothetical and real valuation questions could be due to free-riding in the real-payment survey and not due to hypothetical bias in the hypothetical survey. This paper reports on experiments that implement a theoretically incentive-compatible revelation mechanism (a closed referendum) to elicit responses to valuation questions in both hypothetical and real experiments. As in earlier studies, evidence of an upward hypothetical bias is found.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document