  The notion of hypothetical bias (HB) constitutes, arguably, the most
fundamental issue in relation to the use of hypothetical survey methods.
Whether or to what extent choices of survey participants and subsequent
inferred estimates translate to real-world settings continues to be debated.
While HB has been extensively studied in the broader context of contingent
valuation, it is much less understood in relation to choice experiments (CE).
This paper reviews the empirical evidence for HB in CE in various fields of
applied economics and presents an integrative framework for how HB relates to
external validity. Results suggest mixed evidence on the prevalence, extent and
direction of HB as well as considerable context and measurement dependency.
While HB is found to be an undeniable issue when conducting CEs, the empirical
evidence on HB does not render CEs unable to represent real-world preferences.
While health-related choice experiments often find negligible degrees of HB,
experiments in consumer behaviour and transport domains suggest that
significant degrees of HB are ubiquitous. Assessments of bias in environmental
valuation studies provide mixed evidence. Also, across these disciplines many
studies display HB in their total willingness to pay estimates and opt-in rates
but not in their hypothetical marginal rates of substitution (subject to scale
correction). Further, recent findings in psychology and brain imaging studies
suggest neurocognitive mechanisms underlying HB that may explain some of the
discrepancies and unexpected findings in the mainstream CE literature. The
review also observes how the variety of operational definitions of HB prohibits
consistent measurement of HB in CE. The paper further identifies major sources
of HB and possible moderating factors. Finally, it explains how HB represents
one component of the wider concept of external validity.
