Individual sensitivity to framing effects

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Volumn 67, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 296-307

  Flachaire, Emmanuel ^a   Hollard, Guillaume ^b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ PARIS 1 PANTHÉON SORBONNE   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ GUSTAVE EIFFEL   (France)

Author keywords

Social representation; Starting point bias; WTA WTP divergence

Indexed keywords

EID: 44649109752     PISSN: 01672681     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2006.10.006     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Abric J. Central system, peripheral system: their functions and roles in the dynamics of social representation. Papers on social representation 2 2 (1993) 77-80
2. Alberini A., Kanninen B., and Carson R. Modeling response incentive effects in dichotomous choice valuation data. Land Economics 73 (1997) 309-324
3. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P.R., Leamer, E.E., Radner, R., Schuman, H., 1993. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Tech. Rep. 58, 1601-1614.
4. Brookshire D., and Coursey D. Measuring the value of a public good: an empirical comparison of elicitation procedures. American Economic Review 77 (1987) 554-556
5. Cameron T., and Quiggin J. Estimation using contingent valuation data from a dichotomous choice with follow-up questionnaire. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 27 (1994) 218-234
6. Canter D., and Breakwell G. Empirical Approaches to Social Representation (1993), Clarendon Press, Oxford
7. Carson, R., 1985. Three essays on contingent valuation (welfare economics, non-market goods, water quality. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of agricultural economics and resource economics, University of California, Berkeley.
8. Claeys-Mekdade, C., Geniaux, G., Luchini, S., 1999. Quelle valeur attribuer à la Camargue? une perspective interdisciplinaire économie et sociologie. In: Point, P.M. (Ed.), La valeur économique des hydrosystèmes. Méthodes et modèles d'évaluation des services délivrés. Economica, Paris, pp. 137-168.
9. Farr R., and Moscovici S. Social Representations (1984), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
10. Flachaire, E., Hollard, G., Luchini, S., 2007. Heterogeneous anchoring in dichotomous choice valuation frameweork. Louvain Econ. Rev., in press.
11. Haab T.C., and McConnell K.E. Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources (2003), Edwar Elgar, Northampton
12. Hanemann W.M. Some issues in continuous and discrete response contingent valuation studies. Northeastern Journal of Agricultural Economics 14 (1985) 5-13
13. Herriges J., and Shogren J. Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30 (1996) 112-131
14. Hollard, G., Luchini, S., 1999. Théorie du choix social et représentations : analyse d'une enquête sur le tourisme vert en Camargue. Working Paper 99B06, Greqam, Université de la Méditerranée, Marseille, France.
15. Kahneman D., and Tversky A. Choices, Values and Frames (2000), Cambridge University Press, New-York
16. Levin I., Johnson S., and Gaeth G.J. All frames are created equal: a typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Making Processes 71 (1998) 149-188
17. List J.A. Does market experience eliminate market anomalies?. Quarterly Journal of Economics 118 (2003) 41-71
18. List J.A. Neoclassical theory versus prospect theory: evidence from the marketplace. Econometrica 72 (2004) 615-625
19. MacFadden D., and Leonard G. Issues in the contingent valuation of environmental goods: methodologies for data collection and analysis. In: Hausman J. (Ed). Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment (1993), North-Holland, New York 165-215
20. Moscovici S. La psychoanalyse, son image et son public (1961), Presses Universitaires de France, Paris
21. Moscovici S. Psychologie Sociale (1998), Presses Universitaires de France, Paris
22. Penz E., Meier-Pesti K., and Kirchler E. It's practical but no more controllable: social representation of the electronic purse in Austria. Journal of Economic Psychology 25 (2004) 771-787
23. Plott C.R., and Zeiler K. The willingness to pay/willingness to accept gap, the endowment effect, subject misconceptions and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations. American Economic Review 95 (2005) 530-545
24. Sayman S., and Öncüler A. Effects of study design characteristics on the wta-wtp disparity: a meta analytical framework. Journal of Economic Psychology 26 (2005) 289-312
25. Shogren J., Shin S., Kliebenstein J., and Hayes D. Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept. American Economic Review 84 (1994) 255-270
26. Slovic P. The construction of preference. American Psychologist 50 (1991) 364-371
27. Tversky A., and Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185 (1974) 124-131
28. Vergès P. Approche du noyau central: propriétés quantitatives et structurales. In: Guimelli C. (Ed). Structures et transformations des représentations sociales, Textes de base en Sciences Sociales (1994), Delachaux et Niestlé, Lausanne 233-253
29. Viaud J., and Roland-Levy C. A positional and representational analysis of consumption: households when facing debt and credit. Journal of Economic Psychology 21 (2000) 411-432
30. Wagner W., Duveen G., Farr R., Jovchelovitch S., Lorenzi-Ciodo F., Markova I., and Rose D. Theory and method of social representations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology 2 (1999) 95-125
31. Whitehead J.C. Incentive incompatibility and starting-point bias in iterative valuation questions. Land Economics 78 (2002) 285-297
32. Whitehead J.C. Incentive incompatibility and starting-point bias in iterative valuation questions: reply. Land Economics 80 (2004) 316-319