假设性偏差缓解技术的功效:跨国比较

IF 5.5 3区 经济学 Q1 BUSINESS
Jerrod Penn , Wuyang Hu , Tao Ye
{"title":"假设性偏差缓解技术的功效:跨国比较","authors":"Jerrod Penn ,&nbsp;Wuyang Hu ,&nbsp;Tao Ye","doi":"10.1016/j.jeem.2024.102989","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Hypothetical Bias (HB) remains challenging for practitioners of stated preference approaches. One elusive idea is the extent to which country and culture may affect HB's magnitude and the efficacy of mitigation methods. This paper implements both real and hypothetical elicitation in the United States and China in the context of a field survey and experiment for battery recycling containers to establish the extent of HB. It compares multiple HB mitigation strategies, namely Cheap Talk, Ex Ante Consequentiality, and Certainty Follow-up in the two countries. Results show that a significant amount of actual HB exists. The ex ante methods are ineffective at reducing HB in both countries. The Certainty Follow-up method can be effective but can overcorrect, especially for the Chinese sample. Results also indicate that comparing the efficacy of different mitigation strategies based on only hypothetical scenarios (potential HB) across countries may lead to erroneous conclusions. This study calls for treating country and cultural differences more seriously when conducting international valuation work.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":15763,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Economics and Management","volume":"125 ","pages":"Article 102989"},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069624000639/pdfft?md5=e7e0cc71ee7b76997876986a9b00aa17&pid=1-s2.0-S0095069624000639-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of hypothetical bias mitigation techniques: A cross-country comparison\",\"authors\":\"Jerrod Penn ,&nbsp;Wuyang Hu ,&nbsp;Tao Ye\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jeem.2024.102989\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Hypothetical Bias (HB) remains challenging for practitioners of stated preference approaches. One elusive idea is the extent to which country and culture may affect HB's magnitude and the efficacy of mitigation methods. This paper implements both real and hypothetical elicitation in the United States and China in the context of a field survey and experiment for battery recycling containers to establish the extent of HB. It compares multiple HB mitigation strategies, namely Cheap Talk, Ex Ante Consequentiality, and Certainty Follow-up in the two countries. Results show that a significant amount of actual HB exists. The ex ante methods are ineffective at reducing HB in both countries. The Certainty Follow-up method can be effective but can overcorrect, especially for the Chinese sample. Results also indicate that comparing the efficacy of different mitigation strategies based on only hypothetical scenarios (potential HB) across countries may lead to erroneous conclusions. This study calls for treating country and cultural differences more seriously when conducting international valuation work.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15763,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Environmental Economics and Management\",\"volume\":\"125 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102989\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069624000639/pdfft?md5=e7e0cc71ee7b76997876986a9b00aa17&pid=1-s2.0-S0095069624000639-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Environmental Economics and Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069624000639\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Economics and Management","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069624000639","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

假定偏差(HB)对于陈述偏好方法的实践者来说仍然具有挑战性。一个难以捉摸的想法是,国家和文化可能会在多大程度上影响 HB 的程度以及缓解方法的效果。本文通过对电池回收容器的实地调查和实验,在美国和中国实施了真实和假设的诱导,以确定 HB 的程度。本文比较了两国的多种 HB 缓解策略,即 "廉价谈话"、"事前后果 "和 "确定性跟踪"。结果表明,实际存在大量的有害健康物质。在这两个国家,事前方法在减少 HB 方面效果不佳。确定性跟踪法虽然有效,但会过度矫正,尤其是对中国样本而言。研究结果还表明,仅根据假设情景(潜在的 HB)来比较不同国家不同缓解策略的效果可能会导致错误的结论。本研究呼吁在开展国际评估工作时,应更认真地对待国家和文化差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficacy of hypothetical bias mitigation techniques: A cross-country comparison

Hypothetical Bias (HB) remains challenging for practitioners of stated preference approaches. One elusive idea is the extent to which country and culture may affect HB's magnitude and the efficacy of mitigation methods. This paper implements both real and hypothetical elicitation in the United States and China in the context of a field survey and experiment for battery recycling containers to establish the extent of HB. It compares multiple HB mitigation strategies, namely Cheap Talk, Ex Ante Consequentiality, and Certainty Follow-up in the two countries. Results show that a significant amount of actual HB exists. The ex ante methods are ineffective at reducing HB in both countries. The Certainty Follow-up method can be effective but can overcorrect, especially for the Chinese sample. Results also indicate that comparing the efficacy of different mitigation strategies based on only hypothetical scenarios (potential HB) across countries may lead to erroneous conclusions. This study calls for treating country and cultural differences more seriously when conducting international valuation work.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
4.30%
发文量
91
期刊介绍: The Journal of Environmental Economics and Management publishes theoretical and empirical papers devoted to specific natural resources and environmental issues. For consideration, papers should (1) contain a substantial element embodying the linkage between economic systems and environmental and natural resources systems or (2) be of substantial importance in understanding the management and/or social control of the economy in its relations with the natural environment. Although the general orientation of the journal is toward economics, interdisciplinary papers by researchers in other fields of interest to resource and environmental economists will be welcomed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信