Is WTP an attitudinal measure? Empirical analysis of the psychological explanation for contingent values

Journal of Economic Psychology

Volumn 32, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 674-687

  Ryan, Anthony M ^a   Spash, Clive L ^b,c  

^a AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b VIENNA UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS   (Austria)

^c NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Norway)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Contribution model; Environmental attitudes; Kahneman

Indexed keywords

EID: 80052999297     PISSN: 01674870     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joep.2011.07.004     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Making Processes 1991, 50(2):179-211.
2. Ajzen I. Nature and operations of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology 2001, 52:27-58.
3. Ajzen, I. (2006). Constructing a TPB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Accessed 06.06.09. http://people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf.
4. Ajzen I., Brown T.C., Carvajal F. Explaining the discrepancy between intentions and actions: The case of hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2004, 30(9):1108-1121.
5. Andreoni J. Giving with impure altruism: Application to charity and Ricardian equivalence. Journal of Political Economy 1989, 97(6):1447-1458.
6. Arrow K., Solow R., Portney P., Leamer R.E., Radner R., Schuman H. Report of the Noaa panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 1993, 58(1993):4601-4614.
7. Bateman I.J., Carson R.T., Day B., Hanemann M., Hanley N., Hett T., et al. Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: A manual 2002, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
8. Brown T.C., Champ P.A., Bishop R.C., McCollum D.W. Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good?. Land Economics 1996, 72(2):153-166.
9. Champ P.A., Bishop R.C. donation payment mechanisms and contingent valuation: An empirical study of hypothetical bias. Environment and Resource Economics 2001, 19(4):383-402.
10. Champ P.A., Bishop R.C., Brown T.C., McCollum D.W. Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1997, 33(2):151-162.
11. Christie M. An examination of the disparity between hypothetical and actual willingness to pay using the contingent valuation method: The case of red kite conservation in the United Kingdom. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 2007, 55(2):159-169.
12. Cummings R.G., Brookshire D.S., Schulze W.D. Valuing environmental goods: An assessment of the contingent valuation method 1986, Rowman & Allanheld, Totowa, New Jersey.
13. Cummings R.G., Harrison G.W., Rutstrom E.E. Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: Is the dichotomous choice approach incentive-compatible?. American Economic Review 1995, 85(1):260-266.
14. Cummings R.G., Taylor L.O. Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: A cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. The American Economic Review 1999, 89(3):649-665.
15. Eagly A.H., Chaiken S. The psychology of attitudes 1993, Harcourt Brace, Fort Worth, TX.
16. Eagly A.H., Chaiken S. The advantages of an inclusive definition of attitude. Social Cognition 2007, 25(5):582-602.
17. Festinger L. A theory of cognitive dissonance 1957, Row Peterson, Evanston, IL.
18. Foster V., Bateman I.J., Harley D. Real and hypothetical willingness to pay for environmental preservation: A non-experimental comparison. Journal of Agricultural Economics 1997, 48(2):123-138.
19. Fulton D.C., Manfredo M.J., Lipscomb J. Wildlife value orientations: A conceptual and measurement approach. Human Dimensions of Wildlife: An International Journal 1996, 1(2):24-47.
20. Hertwig R., Hoffrage U., Martignon L. Quick estimation: Letting the environment do the work. Simple heuristics that make us smart 1999, 209-234. Oxford University Press, New York. G. Gigerenzer, P.M. Todd, A.B.C. Research Group (Eds.).
21. Johnson R.J., Swallow S.K. Asymmetries in ordered strength of preference models: Implications of focus shift for discrete-choice preference estimates. Land Economics 1999, 75(2):295-310.
22. Kahneman D., Knetsch J.L. Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1992, 22(1):57-70.
23. Kahneman D., Ritov I. Determinants of stated willingness to pay for public goods: A study in the headline method. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1994, 9(1):5-38.
24. Kahneman D., Ritov I., Jacowitz K., Grant P. Stated willingness to pay for public goods: A psychological perspective. Psychological Science 1993, 4(5):310-315.
25. Kahneman D., Ritov I., Schkade D. Economic preference or attitude expression? An analysis of dollar responses to public issues. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1999, 19(1-3):203-236.
26. Kahneman D., Schkade D., Sunstein C. Shared outrage and erratic awards: The psychology of punitive damages. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1998, 16(1):49-86.
27. List J.A. Do explicit warnings eliminate the hypothetical bias in elicitation procedures? Evidence from field auctions for sportscards. The American Economic Review 2001, 91(5):1498-1507.
28. List J.A., Gallet C. What experimental protocols influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values?. Environmental and Resource Economics 2001, 20(3):241-254.
29. Martinez-Alier J., Munda G., O'Neill J. Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics. Ecological Economics 1998, 26(3):277-286.
30. McFadden D., Leonard G. Issues in the contingent valuation of environmental goods: Methodologies for data collection and analysis. Contingent valuation: A critical assessment 1992, 165-208. Elsevier Science Publisher, Amsterdam. J.A. Hausman (Ed.).
31. Mitchell R.C., Carson R.T. Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method 1989, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
32. Monin B., Oppenheimer D.A. Correlated averages vs averaged correlations: Demonstrating the warm glow heuristic beyond aggregation. Social Cognition 2005, 23(3):257-278.
33. Murphy J.J., Allen P.G., Stevens T.H., Weatherhead D. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, 30(3):313-325.
34. Murphy J.J., Stevens T.H. Contingent valuation, hypothetical bias, and experimental economics. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review. 2004, 33(2):182-192.
35. Murphy J.J., Stevens T.H., Weatherhead D. Is cheap talk effective at eliminating hypothetical bias in a provision point mechanism?. Environment and Resource Economics 2005, 30(3):327-343.
36. Nickerson C.A.E. Does willingness to pay reflect the purchase of moral satisfaction? A reconsideration of Kahneman and Knetsch. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1995, 28(1):126-133.
37. Payne J.W., Bettman J.R., Schkade D. measuring constructed preferences: Towards a building code. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1999, 19(1-3):243-270.
38. Ryan, A., Spash, C. L. (in press). The awareness of consequences scale: An exploration, empirical analysis and reinterpretation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.
39. Ryan A., Spash C.L. Measuring beliefs supportive of environmental action and inaction: A reinterpretation of the awareness of consequences scale 2010, Research Papers in Economics, Munich.
40. Sauer U., Fischer A. Willingness to pay, attitudes and fundamental values: On the cognitive context of public preferences for diversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecological Economics 2010, 70(1):1-9.
41. Schkade D.A., Payne J.W. 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 1994, 26(1):88-109.
42. Spash C.L. Ethical motives and charitable contributions in contingent valuation: Empirical evidence from social psychology and economics. Environmental Values 2000, 9(4):453-479.
43. Spash C.L. Multiple value expression in contingent valuation: Economics and ethics. Environmental Science & Technology 2000, 34(8):1433-1438.
44. Spash C.L. Non-economic motivation for contingent values: Rights and attitudinal beliefs in the willingness to pay for environmental improvements. Land Economics 2006, 82(4):602-622.
45. Spash C.L. Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in combining economics and political processes to value environmental change. Ecological Economics 2007, 63(4):690-699.
46. Spash C.L. Contingent valuation design and data treatment: If you can't shoot the messenger, change the message. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 2008, 26(1):34-53.
47. Spash C.L. Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV) and the evidence for a new value theory. Land Economics 2008, 84(3):34-53.
48. Spash C.L., Urama K., Burton R., Kenyon W., Shannon P., Hill G. Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: Economics, ethics and social psychology. Ecological Economics 2009, 68(4):964-995.
49. Stern P.C., Dietz T., Kalof L. Value orientation, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior 1993, 25(3):322-348.
50. Whynes D.K., Frew E.J., Philips Z.N., Covey J., Smith R.D. On the numerical forms of contingent valuation responses. Journal of Economic Psychology 2007, 28(4):462-476.
51. Whynes D.K., Philips Z., Frew E.J. Think of a number...any number?. Health Economics 2005, 14(11):1191-1195.