Cognitive ability and scale bias in the contingent valuation method: An analysis of willingness to pay to reduce mortality risk

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 39, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 481-495

  Andersson, Henrik ^a   Svensson, Mikael ^b  

^a Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute ^*  (Sweden)

^b ÖREBRO UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Cognitive ability; Contingent valuation; Mortality risk; Near proportionality; Scale bias

Indexed keywords

APPROXIMATION THEORY; CONSTRAINT THEORY; RISK MANAGEMENT; STUDENTS;

CONTINGENT VALUATION (CVM); NEAR-PROPORTIONALITY; RISK REDUCTIONS;

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS;

AUTOMOBILE; COGNITION; CONTINGENT VALUATION; MORTALITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 41049085589     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-007-9137-0     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Alberini A, Cropper M, Krupnick A and Simon NB (2004). Does the value of a statistical life vary with the age and health status? Evidence from the USA and Canada. J Environ Econ Manage 48(1): 769-792
2. Andersson H, Svensson M (2007) Cognitive ability and scale bias in the contingent valuation method. Working paper 2007:1, VTI, Department of Transport Economics, Stockholm, Sweden
3. Barthomolew DJ (1987). Latent variable models and factor analysis. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA
4. Bateman IJ and Brouwer R (2006). Consistency and construction in stated WTP for health risk reductions: a novel scope-sensitivity test. Resour Energy Econ 28(3): 199-214
5. Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann M, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Özdemiroǧlu E, Pearce DW, Sugden R and Swanson J (2002). Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK
6. Benjamin DJ and Shapiro JM (2005). Does cognitive ability reduce psychological bias?. Harvard University, Mimeo
7. Blumenschein K, Johannesson M, Yokoyama KK and Freeman PR (2001). Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment. J Health Econ 20(3): 441-457
8. Carlsson F, Johansson-Stenman O and Martinsson P (2004). Is transport safety more valuable in the air?. J Risk Uncertainty 28(2): 147-163
9. Carson RT and Mitchell RC (1995). Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys. J Environ Econ Manage 28(2): 155-173
10. Carson RT, Flores NE and Meade NF (2001). Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ Resour Econ 19(2): 173-210
11. Clark J and Friesen L (2006). The causes of order effects in contingent valuation surveys: an experimental investigation. University of Canterbury, New Zealand, Mimeo
12. Corso PS, Hammitt JK and Graham JD (2001). Valuing mortality-risk reduction: using visual aids to improve the validity of contingent valuation. J Risk Uncertainty 23(2): 165-184
13. Desvousges WH, Reed JF, Dunford RW, Boyle KJ, Hudson SP, Wilson KN (1993) In: Contingent valuation: a critical assessment. Hausman JA (ed) Measuring Natural resource damage with contingent valuation: a test of validity and reliability. The Netherlands: Norht-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 91-159
14. Diamond PA and Hausman JA (1994). Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number?. J Econ Perspect 8(4): 45-64
15. Duckworth AL and Seligman ME (2005). Self-discioline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychol Sci 16(12): 939-944
16. Frederick S (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. J Econ Perspect 19(4): 25-42
17. Frederick S and Fischhoff B (1998). Scope (In)sensitivity in elicited valuations. J Risk Decision Policy 3(2): 109-123
18. Green D, Jacowitz KE, Kahneman D and McFadden D (1998). Referendum contingent valuation anchoring and willingness to pay for public goods. Resour Energy Econ 20(2): 85-116
19. Hammitt JK (2000). Evaluating contingent valuation of environmental health risks: the proportionality test. AERE (Association of Environmental and Resource Economics) Newslett 20(1): 14-19
20. Hammitt JK and Graham JD (1999). Willingness to pay for health protection: inadequate sensitivity to probability. J Risk Uncertainty 18(1): 33-62
21. Hammar H and Johansson-Stenman O (2004). The value of risk-free cigarettes - do smokers underestimate the risk?. Health Econ 13(1): 59-71
22. Hammitt JK and Zhou Y (2006). The economic value of air-pollution-related health risks in China: a contingent valuation study. Environ Resour Econ 33(3): 399-423
23. Hanley N and Shogren J (2005). Is cost-benefit analysis anomaly proof?. Environ Resour Econ 32(1): 13-34
24. Harrison GW (2006). Experimental evidence on alternative environmental valuation methods. Environ Resour Econ 34(1): 125-186
25. Heberlein TA, Wilson MA, Bishop RC and Schaeffer NC (2005). Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 50(1): 1-22
26. Johnson R (2006). Comment on "Revealing differences in willingness to pay due to the dimensionality of stated choice designs: an initial assessment". Environ Resour Econ 34(1): 45-50
27. Jones-Lee MW (1974). The value of changes in the probability of death or injury. J Political Econ 82(4): 835-849
28. Kahneman D (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics. Am Econ Rev 93(5): 1449-1475
29. Kahneman D and Tversky A (1972). Subjective probability: a judgement of representativeness. Cogn Psychol 3(3): 430-454
30. Kahneman D and Tversky A (1983). Can irrationality be intelligently discussed?. Behav Brain Sci 6: 509-510
31. Kahneman D, Ritov I and Schkade D (1999). Economic preferences or attitude expressions? An analysis of dollar responses to public issues. J Risk Uncertainty 19(1-3): 203-235
32. Kahneman D, Slovic P and Tversky A (1982). Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA
33. Lawley DN and Maxwell AE (1963). Factor analysis as a statistical method. Butterworths, London, UK
34. NOAA (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 58, Arrow, K, Solow, R, Portney, P, Leamer, E, Radner, R, and Schuman, H
35. Persson U, Norinder A, Hjalte K and Gralén K (2001). The value of a statistical life in transport: findings from a new contingent valuation study in Sweden. J Risk Uncertainty 23(2): 121-134
36. Rabin M (2002). Inference by believers in the law of small numbers. Quart J Econ 117(3): 775-816
37. SIKA (2007) Vägtrafikskador 2002-2005 (Road traffic injuries 2002-2005). Internet, www.sika-institute.se, 4/26/07
38. Smith VK (1992). Arbitrary values, good causes and premature verdicts. J Environ Econ Manage 22(1): 71-89
39. Sugden R (2005). Anomalies and stated preference techniques: a framework for a discussion of coping strategies. Environ Resour Econ 32(1): 1-12
40. Weinstein MC, Shepard DS and Pliskin JS (1980). The economic value of changing mortality probabilities: a decision-theoretic approach. Quart J Econ 94(2): 373-396
41. Wolfe R and Johnson S (1995). Personality as a predictor of college performance. Educ Psychol Measure 55: 177-185