Determinants of Insensitivity to Quantity in Valuation of Public Goods: Contribution, Warm Glow, Budget Constraints, Availability, and Prominence

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 107-125

  Baron, Jonathan ^a   Greene, Joshua ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b HARVARD COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 2342622635     PISSN: 1076898X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/1076-898X.2.2.107     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. Economic Journal, 100, 464-477.
2. Baron, J. (1995). Rationality and invariance: Response to Schuman. In D. J. Bjornstad & J. Kahn (Eds.), The contingent valuation of environmental resources: Methodological issues and research needs (pp. 145-163). London: Edward Elgar.
3. Baron, J., Chen, L., & Greene, J. (1993, November). Determinants of insensitivity to quantity in valuation of public goods. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the Judgment and Decision Making Society, Washington, DC.
4. Baron, J., & Greene, J. (1995). [Perfect sensitivity to quantity]. Unpublished raw data.
5. Baron, J. & Spranca, M. (1995). Protected values. Manuscript in preparation. University of Pennsylvania.
6. Boyle, K. J., Desvousges, W. H., Johnson, F. R., Dunford, R. W., & Hudson, S. P. (1994). An investigation of part-whole biases in contingent valuation studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 27, 64-83.
7. Carson, R. T., & Mitchell, R. C. (1993). The issue of scope in contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75, 1263-1267.
8. Carson, R. T., & Mitchell, R. C. (1995). Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 28, 155-173.
9. Delquié, P. (1993). Inconsistent trade-offs between attributes: New evidence in preference assessment bias. Management Science, 39, 1382-1395.
10. Diamond, P. A., & Hausman, J. A. (1994). Contingent valuation: Is some number better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, 45-64.
11. Diamond, P. A., Hausman, J. A., Leonard, G. K., & Denning, M. A. (1993). Does contingent valuation measure preferences? Some experimental evidence. In J. A. Hausman (Ed.), Contingent valuation: A critical assessment (pp. 3-38). Amsterdam: North Holland Press.
12. Dubourg, W. R., Jones-Lee, M. W., & Loomes, G. (1994). Imprecise preferences and the WTP-WTA disparity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 9, 115-133.
13. Fischer, G. W. (1995). Range sensitivity of attribute weights in multiattribute value models. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 252-266.
14. 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, 330-334.
15. Green, D. P., Kahneman, D., & Kunreuther, H. (1994). How the scope and method of public funding affects willingness to pay for public goods. Public Opinion Quarterly, 58, 49-67.
16. Gregory, R., Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (1993). Valuing environmental resources: A constructive approach. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7, 177-197.
17. Guagnano, G. A., Dietz, T., & Stern, P. C. (1994). Willingness to pay for public goods: A test of the contribution model. Psychological Science, 5, 411-415.
18. Hanemann, W. M. (1994). Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, 19-43.
19. Jones-Lee, M. W., Loomes, G., & Philips, P. R. (1993). Valuing the prevention of non-fatal road injuries: Contingent valuation vs. standard gambles. Oxford Economic Papers, 47, 676.
20. Kahneman, D., & Knetsch, J. L. (1992). Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22, 57-70.
21. Kahneman, D., & Ritov, I. (1994). Determinants of stated willingness to pay for public goods: A study of the headline method. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 9, 5-38.
22. 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.
23. Kemp, M. A., & Maxwell, C. (1993). Exploring a budget context for contingent valuation estimates. In J. A. Hausman (Ed.), Contingent valuation: A critical assessment. Amsterdam: North Holland Press.
24. Kemp, S., & Willetts, K. (1995). Rating the value of government-funded services: Comparison of methods. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16, 1-21.
25. Loomis, J., Lockwood, M., & DeLacy, T. (1993). Some empirical evidence on embedding effects in contingent valuation of forest protection. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 24, 45-55.
26. Margolis, H. (1982). Selfishness, altruism, and rationality: A theory of social choice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
27. McFadden, D. (1994). Contingent valuation and social choice. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 76, 689-708.
28. McFadden, D., & Leonard, G. (1993). Issues in the contingent valuation of environmental goods: Methodologies for data collection and analysis. In J. A. Hausman (Ed.), Contingent valuation: A critical assessment (pp. 165-208). Amsterdam: North Holland Press.
29. Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
30. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (1993). Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register, 58(10), 4602-4614.
31. Portney, P. R. (1994). The contingent valuation debate: Why economists should care. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, 3-17.
32. Schuman, H. (1995). The sensitivity of CV outcomes to CV survey methods. In D. J. Bjornstad & J. Kahn (Eds.), The contingent valuation of environmental resources: Methodological issues and research needs (pp. 75-96). London: Edward Elgar.
33. Thaler, R. H. (1993, August). Paper presented at SPUDM 14, Aix-en-Provence, France.
34. Tversky, A., Sattath, S., & Slovic, P. (1988). Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological Review, 95, 371-384.
35. Zakay, D. (1990). The role of personal tendencies in the selection of decision-making strategies. Psychological Record, 40, 207-213.