  This paper reviews methods of hypothetical bias (HB) mitigation in choice
experiments (CEs). It presents a bibliometric analysis and summary of empirical
evidence of their effectiveness. The paper follows the review of empirical
evidence on the existence of HB presented in Part I of this study. While the
number of CE studies has rapidly increased since 2010, the critical issue of HB
has been studied in only a small fraction of CE studies. The present review
includes both ex-ante and ex-post bias mitigation methods. Ex-ante bias
mitigation methods include cheap talk, real talk, consequentiality scripts,
solemn oath scripts, opt-out reminders, budget reminders, honesty priming,
induced truth telling, indirect questioning, time to think and pivot designs.
Ex-post methods include follow-up certainty calibration scales, respondent
perceived consequentiality scales, and revealed-preference-assisted estimation.
It is observed that the use of mitigation methods markedly varies across
different sectors of applied economics. The existing empirical evidence points
to their overall effectives in reducing HB, although there is some variation.
The paper further discusses how each mitigation method can counter a certain
subset of HB sources. Considering the prevalence of HB in CEs and the
effectiveness of bias mitigation methods, it is recommended that implementation
of at least one bias mitigation method (or a suitable combination where
possible) becomes standard practice in conducting CEs. Mitigation method(s)
suited to the particular application should be implemented to ensure that
inferences and subsequent policy decisions are as much as possible free of HB.
