Are We Doing More Harm than Good? Using Hypothetical Bias Reduction Techniques in Consequential Decision Settings

Vasudha Chopra and Christian Vossler

Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 2026, vol. 13, issue 4, 869 - 896

Abstract: Researchers deploying stated preference surveys to value public goods commonly use techniques designed to reduce bias in hypothetical choice settings. This practice is at odds with evidence that most survey respondents perceive that their decisions are not hypothetical but instead have economic consequences. We examine three bias reduction procedures in both hypothetical and incentive-compatible, real payment settings: cheap talk, solemn oath, and certainty adjustment. We confirm that adjusting hypothetical choices based on response certainty or using a solemn oath can reduce hypothetical bias. In the incentive-compatible decision setting, the oath increases willingness to pay (WTP), and certainty adjustment can lead to serious distortions in demand estimates. Cheap talk does not alter mean WTP but leads to a stark difference in WTP across sexes. To minimize unintended consequences, our results suggest that survey researchers should deploy screening questions to better target these hypothetical bias reduction techniques.

Date: 2026
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/740568 (application/pdf)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/740568 (text/html)
Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

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:ucp:jaerec:doi:10.1086/740568

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists from University of Chicago Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Journals Division ().