Influencing what the money is perceived to be worth: Framing and priming in contingent valuation studies

Journal of Economic Psychology

Volumn 23, Issue 5, 2002, Pages 655-663

  Bonini, Nicolao ^a   Biel, Anders ^b   Gärling, Tommy ^b   Karlsson, Niklas ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TRENTO   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Framing; Priming

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036789987     PISSN: 01674870     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00122-8     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Ajzen, I., Brown, T. C., & Rosenthal, L. H. (1996). Information bias in contingent valuation: Effects of personal relevance, quality of information, and motivational orientation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30, 43-57.
2. Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (2000). The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research. In H. T. Reis, & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
3. Baron, J. (1997). Biases in the quantitative measurement of values for public decisions. Psychological Bulletin, 12, 72-88.
4. Baron, J., & Greene, J. (1996). 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.
5. Bateman, I. J., & Willis, K. G. (Eds.). (1999). Valuing environmental preferences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6. Cummings, R. G., Brookshire, D. S., & Schulze, W. D. (Eds.). (1986). Valuing environmental goods: An assessment of the contingent evaluation method. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.
7. Desvousges, W. H., Johnson, F. R., Dunford, R. W., Boyle, K. J., Hudson, S. P., & Wilson, K. N. (1993). Measuring natural resource damages with contingent valuation: Tests of validity and reliability. In J. A. Hausman (Ed.), Contingent valuation: A critical assessment (pp. 91-164). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
8. Diamond, P. A., & Hausman, J. A. (1993). On contingent valuation measurement of nonuse values. In J. A. Hausman (Ed.), Contingent valuation: A critical assessment (pp. 3-38). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
9. Hausman, J. A. (Ed.). (1993). Contingent valuation: A critical assessment. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
10. Kahneman, D., & Knetsch, J. (1992). Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22, 57-70.
11. 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.
12. Kahneman, D., Ritov, I., & Schkade, D. A. (1999). Economic preferences or attitude expression?: An analysis of dollar responses to public issues. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 203-235.
13. Knetsch, (2000). Environmental valuations and standard theory: Behavioral findings, context dependence, and implications. In T. Tietenberg, & H. Folmer (Eds.), The international yearbook of environment and resource economics 2000/2001 (pp. 267-299). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
14. Kristensen, H., & Gärling, T. (1997). Effects of anchor points and reference points on negotiation process and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71, 85-94.
15. Kühberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 23-55.
16. Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
17. Mussweiler, T., & Neuman, R. (2000). Sources of mental contamination: Comparing the effects of self-generated versus externally provided primes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 194-206.
18. Peterson, G. L., Driver, B. L., & Gregory, R. (1988). Amenity resource valuation: Integrating economics with other disciplines. State College, PA: Venture.
19. 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.
20. Spash, C. L. (2000). Ethical motives and charitable contributions in contingent valuation: Empirical evidence from social psychology and economics. Environmental Values, 9, 453-479.
21. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.