The Impact of a Visual Cheap Talk Script in an Online Choice Experiment

International Journal on Food System Dynamics Pub Date : 2021-03-03 DOI:10.18461/IJFSD.V12I1.73

J. Ellis, K. DeLong, K. Jensen, A. Griffith

引用次数: 1

Abstract

Hypothetical bias causes willingness to pay (WTP) values to be inaccurate and is a prevalent issue in choice experiments. Research has shown that a “cheap talk” script may reduce hypothetical bias ; however, it is uncertain which cheap talk script format is the best at controlling hypothetical bias . Therefore, we conduct a choice experiment using a between-subjects design in which half of the articipants saw a “visual” cheap talk script and half saw a “text” cheap talk script prior to the choice sets. Random parameter logit model results indicate hypothetical bias was more prevalent when participants saw the visual cheap talk script compared to the more conventional text cheap talk script. Text learners also appeared to be less prone to hypothetical bias than visual learners.

查看原文本刊更多论文

视觉廉价谈话脚本在在线选择实验中的影响

假设偏差导致支付意愿值不准确，是选择实验中普遍存在的问题。研究表明，“廉价谈话”脚本可能会减少假设性偏见;然而，目前还不确定哪种廉价的谈话脚本格式最能控制假设性偏见。因此，我们使用受试者之间的设计进行了选择实验，其中一半的参与者在选择集之前看到了“视觉”的廉价谈话脚本，另一半看到了“文本”的廉价谈话脚本。随机参数logit模型结果表明，当参与者看到可视化的廉价谈话脚本时，与更传统的文本廉价谈话脚本相比，假设偏差更为普遍。与视觉学习者相比，文字学习者似乎更不容易产生假设偏见。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

International Journal on Food System Dynamics Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous)

CiteScore

1.60

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Understanding the development of the food system requires a system view that captures the complexity of the system and its many interrelationships with its economic, social and natural environments. The Journal accepts and offers papers within this broad range of issues focussing on the management, policy, marketing, consumer aspects, transparency, e-commerce, institutional or regional development, information and communication systems, ressource economics, production economics, chain management, network economics, and similar aspects. Papers may focus on modeling, empirical research or theoretical analyis. This broad range of publication opportunities asks authors to follow clear lines of arguments and to present arguments in a convincing way that avoids unnecessary complexities of model formulations if not relevant for the support of arguments. The publication of scientific articles is complemented by a number of sections that provide room for publications with a more specific focus: ''Case studies'': A section on case studies of the ''Harvard Type'' allows the publication of studies that might build on established scientific methodology but demonstrate its use in ceratin decision environments. Case studies might be complemented by ''teaching cases'' that are kept on a database outside the journal but accessible to readers on approval by authors. ''Research Forum'': It allows to discuss newly emerging research challenges or to contribute to ongoing scientific discussions on research problems. In addition, authors might initiate a discussion on issues brought up by articles published in the journal. ''Research Notes'': It provides room for specific shorter scientific contributions with a narrow scope.