Bounded rationality in contingent valuation: Empirical evidence using cognitive psychology

Ecological Economics

Volumn 68, Issue 1-2, 2008, Pages 570-581

  Frör, Oliver ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HOHENHEIM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Bounded rationality; Dual process models; Environmental valuation; Heuristics

Indexed keywords

COGNITION; CONTINGENT VALUATION; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES; HEURISTICS; PSYCHOLOGY; QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 53649111170     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.05.021     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Ahlheim M., Ekasingh B., Frör O., Kitchaicharoen J., Neef A., Sangkapitux C., and Sinphurmsukskul N. Using citizen expert groups in environmental valuation - lessons from a CVM study in Northern Thailand. Hohenheimer Diskussionsbeiträge 283/2007 (2007)
2. Andreoni J. Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal 100 (1990) 464-477
3. Ariely D., Loewenstein G., and Prelec D. "Coherent arbitrariness": stable demand curves without stable preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics (2003) 73-105 February
4. Broadbent D.E. Perception and communication (1958), Pergamon, New York
5. Butler D., and Loomes G. Quasi-rational search under incomplete information: some evidence from experiments. The Manchester School vol. LXV (2) (1997) 127-144
6. Cacioppo J.T., Petty R.E., Feinstein J., and Jarvin W.B.G. Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: the life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin 119 (1996) 197-253
7. Cacioppo J.T., and Petty R.E. The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42 1 (1982) 116-131
8. Cameron T.A., and Huppert D.D. OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 17 (1989) 230-246
9. Carson R.T., and Groves T. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics 37 (2007) 181-210
10. Carson R.T., and Hanemann W.M. Contingent valuation. In: Mäler K.-G., and Vincent J.R. (Eds). Handbook of Environmental Economics vol. 2 (2005), Elsevier B.V. 821-936
11. Chaiken S. Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39 (1980) 752-766
12. Champ P.A., and Bishop R.C. Is willingness to pay for a public good sensitive to the elicitation format?. Land Economics 82 (2006) 162-173
13. Chen S., and Chaiken S. The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In: Chaiken S., and Trope Y. (Eds). Dual-process theories in social psychology (1999), Guilfold Press, New York 73-96
14. Conlisk J. A note on convergence of adaptive satisficing to optimal stopping. Journal of Political Economy 111 (2003) 1353-1360
15. Conlisk J. Why bounded rationality?. Journal of Economic Literature 34 (1996) 669-700
16. Cooper J., and Loomis J. Sensitivity of willingness-to-pay estimates to bid design in dichotomous choice contingent valuation models. Land Economics 68 (1992) 211-224
17. Craik G.I.M., and Lockhart R.S. Levels of processing: a framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11 (1972) 671-684
18. DeShazo J.R. Designing transactions without framing effects in iterative question formats. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43 (2002) 360-385
19. Epstein S., Pacini R., Denes-Raj V., and Heier H. Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71 (1996) 390-405
20. Fischer A., and Hanley N. Analyzing decision behaviour in stated preference surveys: a consumer psychological approach. Ecological Economics 61 (2007) 303-314
21. Frew E.J., Whynes D.K., and Wolstenholme J.L. Eliciting willingness to pay: comparing closed-ended with open-ended and payment scale formats. Medical Decision Making, March-April, 150-159 (2003)
22. Frör O. Rationality concepts in environmental valuation (2007), Peter Lang, Frankfurt
23. Gilbert D.T. What the mind's not. In: Chaiken S., and Trope Y. (Eds). Dual-process theories in social psychology (1999), Guilfold Press, New York 3-11
24. Gregory R., Lichtenstein S., and Slovic P. Valuing environmental resources: a constructive approach. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7 (1993) 177-197
25. Hanley, N., Kristrom, B., Shogren, J., in press. Coherent Arbitrariness: On Value Uncertainty for Environmental Goods. Land Economics. Available from www.economics.stir.ac.uk.
26. Herriges J.A., and Shogren J.F. Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. Journal of environmental economics and management 30 (1996) 112-131
27. Hutchinson W.G., Chilton S.M., and Davis J. Measuring non-use value of environmental goods using the contingent valuation method: problems of information and cognition and the application of cognitive questionnaire design methods. Journal of Agricultural Economics 46 (1995) 97-112
28. Jorgensen B.S., and Syme G.J. Protest response and willingness to pay: attitude toward paying for stormwater pollution abatement. Ecological Economics 33 (2000) 251-265
29. Kahneman D., and Knetsch J. Valuing public goods. the purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22 (1992) 57-70
30. Kahneman D., and Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision making under risk. Econometrica 47 (1979) 263-291
31. Leggett C.G., Kleckner N.S., Boyle K.J., Duffield J.W., and Mitchell R.C. Social desirability bias in contingent valuation surveys administered through in-person interviews. Land Economics 79 (2003) 561-575
32. Li C.-Z., and Mattsson L. Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: an improved structural model for contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28 (1995) 256-269
33. Macmillan D., Hanley N., and Lienhoop N. Contingent valuation: environmental polling or preference engine?. Ecological Economics 60 (2006) 299-307
34. Mas-Colell A., Whinston M.D., and Green J.R. Microeconomic theory (1995), Oxford University Press, New York
35. McComb G. A contingent valuation study of Winnipeg municipal water using bounded rationality. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development 1 3 (2002) 234-248
36. McDaniels T.L., Gregory R., Arvai J., and Chuenpagdee R. Decision structuring to alleviate embedding in environmental valuation. Ecological Economics 46 (2003) 33-46
37. Medin D.L., Ross B.H., and Markman A.B. Cognitive psychology. Fourth edition (2005), John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken
38. Meyerhoff M., and Liebe U. Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: explaining their motivation. Ecological Economics 57 (2006) 583-594
39. Mitchell R.C., and Carson R.T. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method (1989), Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.
40. Moskowitz G.B., Skurnik I., and Galinsky A.D. The history of dual-process notions, and the future of preconscious control. In: Chaiken S., and Trope Y. (Eds). Dual-process theories in social psychology (1999), Guilfold Press, New York 12-36
41. Paivio A. Mental representations: a dual coding approach (1986), Oxford University Press, New York
42. Pashler H.E. The psychology of attention (1998), MIT, Cambridge
43. Petty R.E., and Wegener D.T. The Elaboration Likelihood Model: current status and controversies. In: Chaiken S., and Trope Y. (Eds). Dual-process theories in social psychology (1999), Guilfold Press, New York 41-72
44. Ready R.C., Buzby J.C., and Hu D. Differences between continuous and discrete contingent value estimates. Land Economics 72 3 (1996) 397-411
45. Ryan M., Scott D.A., and Donaldson C. Valuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods. Journal of Health Economics 23 (2004) 237-258
46. Simon H.A. Models of man. Social and rational. Fifth printing 1967 (1957), Wiley and Sons, New York
47. Simon H.A. A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics 69 (1955) 99-118
48. Sloman S.A. Two systems of reasoning. In: Gilovich T., Griffin D., and Kahneman D. (Eds). Heuristics and biases. The psychology of intuitive judgment, 379-396 (2002), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
49. Tversky A. Elimination by aspects: a theory of choice. Psychological Review 79 (1972) 281-299
50. Welsh M.P., and Poe G.L. Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36 (1998) 170-185
51. Whittington D. Improving the performance of contingent valuation studies in developing countries. Environmental and Resource Economics 22 (2002) 323-367
52. Whynes D.K., Wolstenholme J.L., and Frew E. Evidence of range bias in contingent valuation payment scales. Health Economics 13 (2004) 183-190