This article presents evidence on the stability and behavioural validity of alternative survey mechanisms for eliciting farmers' attitudes towards risk. Three hypothetical instruments are considered that differ in terms of the simplicity, context and payoff scale of the decision presented to respondents. Responses are assessed in terms of their relative ability to explain actual farmer crop insurance purchases. Results indicate that measures of risk attitudes are poorly correlated across alternative mechanisms. The strongest positive evidence of behavioural validity is found for the gamble task explicitly defined in the context and scale of farmers' economic activities pertaining to their insurance purchase decision.

The investigation of hypothetical bias in choice experiments (CEs) has typically been conducted in the laboratory with only minimal field experiments. Moreover, it is common practice to provide an initial endowment (money or coupons) to respondents. In this research, we employed a between-subject CE in a supermarket with three different treatments (i.e. hypothetical, hypothetical with cheap talk script and real). With the ‘real’ treatment, we required respondents to use their own money when making a payment. The proposed incentive-compatible mechanism mimics as close as possible the everyday purchasing situation. Results confirm the presence of hypothetical bias and the mixed effectiveness of a cheap talk script.