Files
Abstract
In this working paper we demonstrate that some of the statistical tests used by Huang and Smith in a
recent Land Economics article (74(2 1998): 186-202) were erroneous, and raise concerns about their
corresponding conclusions. Specifically, using data from one of the studies that they showcase, we
demonstrate that Huang and Smith’s analysis suggesting statistical equality between hypothetical
dichotomous choice responses and actual contributions is incorrect. We further show that their purported
equality between dichotomous choice and open-ended response formats is unfounded. Based on these
analyses we conclude that when real humans make real or stated decisions, the observed procedural
variance across elicitation methods and the degree of hypothetical bias are more fundamental than relying
on alternative econometric specifications.