Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-v2ckm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-16T13:48:02.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does context matter more for hypothetical than for actual contributions? Evidence from a natural field experiment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Francisco Alpizar ,
Fredrik Carlsson  and
Olof Johansson-Stenman
Francisco Alpizar
Affiliation:
Environment for Development Center, Tropical Agricultural and Higher Education Center (CATIE), 7170, Turrialba, Costa Rica
Fredrik Carlsson*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Göteborg University, Box 640, 40530, Göteborg, Sweden
Olof Johansson-Stenman
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Göteborg University, Box 640, 40530, Göteborg, Sweden
*
e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

Environmental valuationStated preference methodsVoluntary contributionsAnonymityConformityNatural field experiment

JEL classification

C93: Field Experiments Q50: General
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 11 , Issue 3: Field experiments in economics with applications to the economics of charity , September 2008 , pp. 299 - 314
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akerlof, G., & Kranton, R. (2000). Economics and identity. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 715753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blamey, R. K., Bennett, J. W., & Morrison, M. D. (1999). Yea-saying in contingent valuation surveys. Land Economics, 75, 126–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cookson, R. (2000). Framing effects in public goods experiments. Experimental Economics, 3, 55–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummings, R., Elliot, S., Harrison, G., & Murphy, J. (1997). Are hypothetical referenda incentive compatible. Journal of Political Economy, 105, 609–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U., Gaechter, S., & Fehr, E. (2001). Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Economic Letters, 71, 397–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, B., & Meier, S. (2004). Social Comparisons and pro-social behavior: testing “Conditional Cooperation” in a field experiment. American Economic Review, 94, 1717–1722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Hanemann, W. M. (1994). Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, 19–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G., & List, J. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42, 1009–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heldt, T. (2005). Conditional cooperation in the field: cross-country skiers’ behavior in Sweden. Working Paper, Department of Economics and Society, Dalarna University.Google Scholar
Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., Shachat, J., & Smith, V. (1994). Preferences, property rights, and anonymity in bargaining games. Games and Economic Behavior, 7, 346–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson-Stenman, O., & Svedsäter, H. (2007). Self image and the valuation of public goods. Working Paper, Department of Economics, Göteborg University.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Thaler, R. (2006). Anomalies: utility maximisation and experienced utility. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20, 221–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., Wakker, P., & Sarin, R. (1997). Back to Bentham? Explorations of experienced utility. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 375–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlan, D., & List, J. (2007). What do laboratory experiments tell us about the real world? American Economic Review, 97, 1774–1793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, S., & List, J. (2008, in press). What do laboratory experiments tell us about the real world? Journal of Economic Perspectives.Google Scholar
List, J. A., & Gallet, C. A. (2001). What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical values? Environmental and Resource Economics, 20, 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 215233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, R., & Randal, J. (2005). Voluntary contributions to a public good: a natural field experiment. Working Paper, Victoria University, New Zealand.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, R., & Carson, R. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Rousseeuw, P. J., & Leroy, A. M. (1987). Robust regression and outlier detection. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shang, J., & Croson, R. (2006). Field experiments in charitable contribution: the impact of social influence on the voluntary provision of public goods. Working Paper.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
STATA (2005). STATA base reference manual. College Station: Stata Press.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed