Understanding and valuing environmental issues: The effects of availability and anchoring on judgment

Experimental Psychology

Volumn 45, Issue 4-1, 1998, Pages 286-302

  Van Der Pligt, Joop ^a   Van Schie, Els C M ^a   Hoevenagel, Ruud ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Anchoring and adjustment; Availability; Environmental risk; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ACID RAIN; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CHILD; DECISION MAKING; DENMARK; DISASTER; ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; EPIDEMIOLOGY; GREENHOUSE EFFECT; HUMAN; RISK FACTOR; STUDENT;

ACID RAIN; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CAUSALITY; CHILD; DENMARK; ENVIRONMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; GREENHOUSE EFFECT; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; NATURAL DISASTERS; RISK FACTORS; STUDENTS;

EID: 0032238283     PISSN: 16183169     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Barlow, R. E., Fussell, J. B. & Singpurwalla, N. D. (Eds.) (1975). Reliability and fault tree analysis: Theoretical and applied aspects of system reliability and safety assessment. Philadelphia: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
2. Baron, J. (1997). Biases in the qualitative measurement of values for public decisions. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 72-88.
3. Baron, J. & Green, J. (1986). Determinants of insensitivity to quantity in valuation of public goods: Contribution, warm glow, budget constraints, availability, and prominence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2, 107-125.
4. Bonini, N. & Caverni, J. P. (1995). The "catch all underestimation bias": Availability hypothesis vs. category redefinition hypothesis. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 14, 301-322.
5. Boyle, K. J. & Bishop, R. C. (1988). Welfare measurements using contingent valuation: a comparison of techniques. American Journal of Agriculture Economics, Vol. 70, pp. 20-28.
6. Boyle, K.J. (1989). Commodity specification and the framing of contingent valuation questions. Land Economics, vol. 65, pp. 57-63.
7. Ciriacy-Wantrap, S. V. (1952). Resource conservation: economics and policies. Berkely: University of California Press.
8. Cummings, R. G., Brookshire, D. S. & Schulze, W. D. (1986). Valuing environmental goods: an assessment of the contingent valuation method. Totowa: Rowan and Allanheld.
9. d'Arge, R. C. (1985). Environmental quality benefits research for the next five rears: some observations and recommendations. Washington D. C.: Draft preliminary report to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
10. Davis, R. K. (1963). The value of outdoor recreation: an economic study of the Maine woods. Harvard University, Ph.D. dissertation.
11. Diamond, P. A. & Hausman, J. A. (1994). Contingent valuation: Is some number better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, 45-64.
12. Dubé-Rioux, L. & Russo, J. R. (1988). An availability bias in professional judgment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1, 223-237.
13. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P. & Lichtenstein, S. (1978). Fault trees: Sensitivity of estimated failure probabilities to problem representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 330-344.
14. Fox, C. R. & Tversky, A. (in press). A belief-based account of decision under uncertainty. In D. Kahneman & A. Tversky (Eds.), Choices, values and frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Hahenman, W. M. (1994). Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, 19-43.
16. Heath, L., Tinduk, R. S., Edwards, J., Posavac, E. J., Bryant, F. B., Henderson-King, E., Suarez-Balcazar, Y. & Myers, J. (Eds.) (1994), Applications of heuristics and biases to social issues. New York: Plenum Press.
17. Hirt, E. R. & Castellan, N. J., Jr. (1988). Probability and category identification in the fault tree paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 112-131.
18. Hoevenagel, R. (1994). The contingent Valuation Method: Scope and Validity. Unpublished dissertation. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
19. Kahneman, D. & Knetsch, J. E. (1992). Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22, 57-70.
20. Kahneman, D., Ritov, I., Jacowitz, K. E. & Grant, P. (1993). Stated willingness to pay for public goods: A psychological perspective. Psychological Science, 4, 310-315.
21. Mitchell, R. C. & Carson, R. T. (1981). An experiment of determining willingness to pay for national water quality improvements. Washington D. C.: Draft report to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
22. Mitchell, R. C. & Carson, R. T. (1986). Some comments on the state of the arts assessment of the contingent valuation method draft report. In R. G. Cummings, D. S. Brookshire & W. D. Schulze. Valuing environmental goods: an assessment of the contingent valuation method. Totowa: Rowan and Allanheld.
23. Mitchell, R. C. & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington, D. C.: The John Hopkins University Press for Resources of the Future.
24. Nationaal Milieubeleidsplan; Kiezen of verliezen (1989). VROM. 's-Gravenhage: SDU-uitgeverij.
25. Parducci, A. (1965). Category judgment: A range-frequency model. Psychological Review, 72, 407-418.
26. Parducci, A. & Wedell, D. H. (1986). The category effect with rating scales: Number of categories, number of stimuli, and method of presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12, 496-516.
27. Randall, A. (1986). The possibility of satisfactory benefit estimation with contingent markets. In R. G. Cummings, D. S. Brookshire & W. D. Schulze (Eds.), Valuing environmental goods: an assessment of the contingent valuation method. Totowa: Rowman and Allanheld, pp. 114-122.
28. Rottenstreich, Y. & Tversky, A. (1997). Unpacking, repacking, and anchoring: Advances in support theory. Psychological Review 104, 406-415.
29. Russo, J. E. & Kolzow, K. J. (1994). Where is the fault in fault trees? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 17-32.
30. Samples, K. C., Dixon, J. A. & Gowen, M. M. (1986). Information disclosure and endangered species valuation. Land Economics, Vol. 62, pp. 306-312.
31. Schkade, D. A. & Payne, J. W. (1994). How people respond to contingent valuation questions: A verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26, 88-109.
32. Schuman, H. (1995). The sensitivity of CV outcomes to CV survey methods. In D. J. Bjornstad & J. Kahn (Eds.), The contigent valuation of environmental resources: Methodological issues and research needs (pp. 75-96). London: Edward Elgar.
33. Schwarz, N., Hippler, H., Deutsch, B. & Strack, F. (1985). Response scales: effects of category range on reported behavior and comparative judgments. Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 49, pp. 388-395.
34. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 207-232.
35. Tversky, A. & Koehler, D. J. (1994). Support theory: A nonextensional representation of subjective probability. Psychological Review, 101, 547-567.
36. Van der Pligt, J. (1996). Social psychology and environmental issues. In G. Semin & K. Fiedler (Eds.), Applied Social Psychology (pp. 173-197). London: Sage.
37. Van der Pligt, J., Eiser, J. R. & Spears, R. (1987) Comparative judgments and preferences: The influence of the number of response alternatives. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 269-280.
38. Van Schie, E. C. M. & Van der Pligt, J. (1990). Influence diagrams and fault trees: The role of salience and anchoring. In K. Borcherding, O. I. Larichev & D. Messick (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Decision Making (pp. 177-188). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
39. Van Schie, E. C. M. & Van der Pligt, J. (1994). Getting an anchor on availability in causal judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57, 140-154.
40. Zorgen voor morgen; Nationale milieuverkenning 1985-2010 (1988). RIVM. Alphen a.d. Rijn: Tjeenk Willink.