CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 42Economic and Environmental ValuationSurvey Methodology and NonresponseDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Hypothetical bias mitigation in representative and convenience samples

Open access
Penn, Jerrod M., Petrolia, Daniel R., Fannin, J. Matthew·2023·Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy
DOI 10.1002/aepp.13374
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This is a case study comparing outcomes for a probability‐based representative sample versus a non‐probability convenience sample for the valuation of beach condition information among Gulf of Mexico residents. We test the efficacy of several techniques used to adjust for hypothetical bias and sample weighting to reduce hypothetical willingness to pay (WTP). Weighting makes the WTP between the two samples similar, but model equivalence with respect to the significance of explanatory variables is rejected. The results support the use of certainty follow‐ups, which consistently reduced WTP, regardless of the sampling approach or weighting.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/aepp.13374

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 59

  1. 10.1016/j.jebo.2004.09.006 · DOI
  2. 10.1007/s10640-011-9464-z · DOI
  3. 10.1111/rssc.12371 · DOI
  4. 10.1093/poq/nfq048 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1093/jssam/smt008 · DOI
  6. 10.2112/07-0861.1 · DOI
  7. 10.1007/s10640-008-9242-8 · DOI
  8. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.02.015 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1093/poq/nfr045 · DOI
  10. 10.1093/poq/nfl031 · DOI
  11. 10.3368/le.98.1.040720-0050R1 · DOI
  12. 10.1007/s10640-007-9124-5 · DOI
  13. 10.1007/978-94-007-7104-8_3 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/j.tourman.2018.06.032 · DOI
  15. 10.1017/psrm.2018.10 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Czajka J. L., 2016, Declining Response Rates in Federal Surveys: Trends and Implications
  17. 10.1214/aoms/1177731829 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Dever J. A., 2008, Internet Surveys: Can Statistical Adjustments Eliminate Coverage Bias?, Survey Research Methods, 2: 47
  19. 10.1080/01621459.1992.10475217 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Dillman D. A., 2014, Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed‐Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 10.1002/9781394260645 · DOI
  21. 10.1080/08920750701861007 · DOI
  22. 10.1093/poq/nfw061 · DOI
  23. 10.15406/bbij.2017.05.00149 · DOI
  24. Goodrich B. K., 2023, Battling Bots: Experiences and Strategies to Mitigate Fraudulent Responses in Online Surveys, Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 45, 762, 10.1002/aepp.13353 · DOI
  25. 10.1093/poq/nfr057 · DOI
  26. Groves R. M., 2011, Survey Methodology
  27. 10.4337/9781843765431 · DOI
  28. 10.2307/1242685 · DOI
  29. 10.3368/le.92.2.292 · DOI
  30. Johnston R., 2021, Do You Know Who's Answering Your Survey? Expanding Threats to the Integrity of Online Panel Data in Environmental and Resource Economics
  31. 10.1086/691697 · DOI
  32. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.03.032 · DOI
  33. 10.1080/08920750701868002 · DOI
  34. Leatherman S. P., 1997, Beach Rating: A Methodological Approach, Journal of Coastal Research
  35. Lynch T., 2003, Economic Impact Analysis of Coastal Ocean Observing Systems In the Gulf Coast Region
  36. 10.1093/poq/nfw060 · DOI
  37. 10.1007/s10640-009-9287-3 · DOI
  38. 10.1093/ajae/aay021 · DOI
  39. 10.1016/j.jeem.2019.02.005 · DOI
  40. 10.1007/s10640-022-00742-6 · DOI
  41. 10.1086/706248 · DOI
  42. 10.1023/A:1020242907259 · DOI
  43. 10.1111/j.1467-8276.2005.00727.x · DOI
  44. Potter F. J., 1988, Survey of Procedures to Control Extreme Sampling Weights, Proceedings of American Statistical Association, Survey Research Methods Section
  45. 10.1080/08920750701861155 · DOI
  46. 10.1016/j.tra.2013.10.003 · DOI
  47. Sandstrom K., 2023, “Comparing Water Quality Valuation across Probability and Non‐Probability Samples.”, Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 45, 744, 10.1002/aepp.13375 · DOI
  48. 10.4018/978-1-4666-3918-8.ch006 · DOI
  49. 10.1016/j.wep.2013.10.001 · DOI
  50. Thomas R. K. andF. M.Barlas.2014.“Respondents Playing Fast and Loose? Antecedents and Consequences of Respondent Speed of Completion.”The American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) 69th Annual Conference.
  51. Valliant Richard Jill A. Dever and Frauke Kreuter. 2013.Practical Tools for Designing and Weighting Survey Samples. Vol. 1. New York: Springer. · DOI
  52. Valliant Richard and Jill A. Dever. 2018.Survey Weights: A step‐by‐step Guide to Calculation. College Station TX: Stata Press.
  53. Vehovar V., 2012, Zaznava sovražnega govora na slovenskem spletu, Teorija in praksa, 49, 171
  54. Vehovar V. V.Toepoel andS.Steinmetz.2016.“Non‐probability sampling.”The Sage Handbook of Survey Methods: 329–345. · DOI
  55. Vonk T. R.Van Ossenbruggen andP.Willems.2006.“A Comparison Study across 19 Online Panels (NOPVO 2006).”DANS Symposium Publications.
  56. 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2006.10.001 · DOI
  57. Whitehead J. C., Estimating the Benefits to Florida Households from Avoiding Another Gulf Oil Spill Using the Contingent Valuation Method: Internal Validity Tests with Probability‐Based and Opt‐in Samples, Applied Economics Perspectives and Policy, 45, 705, 10.1002/aepp.13352 · DOI
  58. 10.4135/9781473957893 · DOI
  59. 10.1093/poq/nfr020 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 42

Metadata

Authors
Penn, J. M., Petrolia, D. R., & Fannin, J. M.
Affiliations
  • Louisiana State University (US)
  • Mississippi State University (US)
Corresponding author
Penn, Jerrod M.
ORCID
Venue
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2023-05-18
Volume
45
Issue
2
Pages
721-743
ISSN
  • 2040-5790 (ISSN-L)
  • 2040-5804
DOI
10.1002/aepp.13374
OpenAlex
W4377098730
Cited by
42
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5
FWCI
8.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy (publishedVersion)
  • Civil War Book Review (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Louisiana State University
  • National Institute of Food and Agriculture
  • Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
hypothetical bias, willingness to pay, representative sampling, convenience sampling, non-probability samples, sample weighting, contingent valuation, model equivalence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review