Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: a meta-analysis of the hypothetical bias
Jonas Schmidt (jo.schmidt@uni-muenster.de) and
Tammo H. A. Bijmolt (t.h.a.bijmolt@rug.nl)
Additional contact information
Jonas Schmidt: University of Muenster
Tammo H. A. Bijmolt: University of Groningen
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2020, vol. 48, issue 3, No 8, 499-518
Abstract:
Abstract Consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) is highly relevant to managers and academics, and the various direct and indirect methods used to measure it vary in their accuracy, defined as how closely the hypothetically measured WTP (HWTP) matches consumers’ real WTP (RWTP). The difference between HWTP and RWTP is the “hypothetical bias.” A prevalent assumption in marketing science is that indirect methods measure WTP more accurately than do direct methods. With a meta-analysis of 77 studies reported in 47 papers and resulting in 115 effect sizes, we test that assumption by assessing the hypothetical bias. The total sample consists of 24,347 included observations for HWTP and 20,656 for RWTP. Moving beyond extant meta-analyses in marketing, we introduce an effect size metric (i.e., response ratio) and a novel analysis method (i.e., multivariate mixed linear model) to analyze the stochastically dependent effect sizes. Our findings are relevant for academic researchers and managers. First, on average, the hypothetical bias is 21%, and this study provides a reference point for the expected magnitude of the hypothetical bias. Second, the deviation primarily depends on the use of a direct or indirect method for measuring HWTP. In contrast with conventional wisdom, indirect methods actually overestimate RWTP significantly stronger than direct methods. Third, the hypothetical bias is greater for higher valued products, specialty goods (cf. other product types), and within-subject designs (cf. between-subject designs), thus a stronger downward adjustment of HWTP values is necessary to reflect consumers’ RWTP.
Keywords: Willingness to pay; Reservation price; Pricing; Conjoint analysis; Measurement accuracy; Hypothetical bias; Meta-analysis; Response ratio; Stochastically dependent effect sizes (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (34)
Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11747-019-00666-6 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
HTML/Text
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:joamsc:v:48:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s11747-019-00666-6
Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.springer ... gement/journal/11747
DOI: 10.1007/s11747-019-00666-6
Access Statistics for this article
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science is currently edited by John Hulland, Anne Hoekman and Mark Houston
More articles in Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla (sonal.shukla@springer.com) and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (indexing@springernature.com).