Abstract
We investigated the importance of the social context for people’s voluntary contributions to a national park in Costa Rica, using a natural field experiment. Some subjects make actual contributions while others state their hypothetical contribution. Both the degree of anonymity and information provided about the contributions of others influence subject contributions in the hypothesized direction. We found a substantial hypothetical bias with regard to the amount contributed. However, the influence of the social contexts is about the same when the subjects make actual monetary contributions as when they state their hypothetical contributions. Our results have important implications for validity testing of stated preference methods: a comparison between hypothetical and actual behavior should be done for a given social context.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Akerlof, G., & Kranton, R. (2000). Economics and identity. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 715–753.
Alpizar, A., Carlsson, F., & Johansson-Stenman, O. (2008, in press). Anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity: evidence from voluntary contributions to a National Park in Costa Rica. Journal of Public Economics.
Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2001). Do people mean what they say? Implications for subjective survey data. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 91, 67–72.
Blamey, R. K., Bennett, J. W., & Morrison, M. D. (1999). Yea-saying in contingent valuation surveys. Land Economics, 75, 126–141.
Blumenschein, K., Blomquist, G. C., Johannesson, M., Horn, N., & Freeman, P. (2008). Eliciting willingness to pay without bias: evidence from a field experiment. Economic Journal, 118, 114–137.
Carson, R., Flores, N., Martin, K. M., & Wright, J. L. (1996). Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Economics, 72, 80–99.
Champ, P. A., Bishop, R. C., Brown, T. C., & McCollum, D. W. (1997). Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 33, 151–162.
Cookson, R. (2000). Framing effects in public goods experiments. Experimental Economics, 3, 55–79.
Cummings, R. G., & Taylor, L. O. (1999). Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. American Economic Review, 89, 649–665.
Cummings, R., Elliot, S., Harrison, G., & Murphy, J. (1997). Are hypothetical referenda incentive compatible. Journal of Political Economy, 105, 609–621.
Fischbacher, U., Gaechter, S., & Fehr, E. (2001). Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Economic Letters, 71, 397–404.
Frey, B., & Meier, S. (2004). Social Comparisons and pro-social behavior: testing “Conditional Cooperation” in a field experiment. American Economic Review, 94, 1717–1722.
Gächter, S. (2006). Conditional cooperation: behavioral regularities from the lab and the field and their policy implications. CeDEx Discussion Paper No. 2006-03, University of Nottingham.
Hanemann, W. M. (1994). Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, 19–43.
Harrison, G., & List, J. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42, 1009–1055.
Heldt, T. (2005). Conditional cooperation in the field: cross-country skiers’ behavior in Sweden. Working Paper, Department of Economics and Society, Dalarna University.
Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., Shachat, J., & Smith, V. (1994). Preferences, property rights, and anonymity in bargaining games. Games and Economic Behavior, 7, 346–380.
Holmes, T., & Kramer, R. (1995). An independent sample test of yea-saying and starting point bias in dichotomous-choice contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29, 121–132.
Johansson-Stenman, O., & Svedsäter, H. (2007). Self image and the valuation of public goods. Working Paper, Department of Economics, Göteborg University.
Kahneman, D., & Thaler, R. (2006). Anomalies: utility maximisation and experienced utility. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20, 221–234.
Kahneman, D., Wakker, P., & Sarin, R. (1997). Back to Bentham? Explorations of experienced utility. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 375–406.
Karlan, D., & List, J. (2007). What do laboratory experiments tell us about the real world? American Economic Review, 97, 1774–1793.
Landry, C., Lange, A., List, J., Price, M., & Rupp, N. (2006). Toward an understanding of the economics of charity: evidence from a field experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 747–782.
Legget, C., Kleckner, N., Boyle, K., Duffield, J., & Mitchell, R. (2003). Social desirability bias in contingent valuation surveys administered through in-person interviews. Land Economics, 79, 561–575.
Levitt, S., & List, J. (2008, in press). What do laboratory experiments tell us about the real world? Journal of Economic Perspectives.
List, J. A., & Gallet, C. A. (2001). What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical values? Environmental and Resource Economics, 20, 241–254.
List, J. A., & Lucking-Reiley, D. (2002). The effects of seed money and refunds on charitable giving: experimental evidence from a university capital campaign. Journal of Political Economy, 110, 215–233.
List, J. A., Berrens, A. P., Bohara, A. K., & Kerkvliet, J. (2004). Examining the role of social isolation on stated preferences. American Economic Review, 94, 741–752.
Martin, R., & Randal, J. (2005). Voluntary contributions to a public good: a natural field experiment. Working Paper, Victoria University, New Zealand.
McCabe, K., Smith, V., & LePore, M. (2000). Intentionality detection and “Mindreading”: why does game form matter? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97, 4404–4409.
Mitchell, R., & Carson, R. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington: Resources for the Future.
Rousseeuw, P. J., & Leroy, A. M. (1987). Robust regression and outlier detection. New York: Wiley.
Russel, C., Bjorner, T., & Clark, C. (2003). Searching for evidence of alternative preferences, public as opposed to private. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 51, 1–27.
Schkade, D. A., & Payne, J. W. (1994). How people respond to contingent valuation questions—a verbal protocol analysis of willingness-to-pay for an environmental regulation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26, 88–109.
Shang, J., & Croson, R. (2006). Field experiments in charitable contribution: the impact of social influence on the voluntary provision of public goods. Working Paper.
Soetevent, A. R. (2005). Anonymity in giving in a natural context: an economic field experiment in thirty churches. Journal of Public Economics, 8, 2301–2323.
STATA (2005). STATA base reference manual. College Station: Stata Press.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Alpizar, F., Carlsson, F. & Johansson-Stenman, O. Does context matter more for hypothetical than for actual contributions? Evidence from a natural field experiment. Exper Econ 11, 299–314 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-007-9194-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-007-9194-9
Keywords
- Environmental valuation
- Stated preference methods
- Voluntary contributions
- Anonymity
- Conformity
- Natural field experiment