Behavioural economics and the valuation of non-marketed goods and services: The lab, the behavioural anomalies and the policy-maker

Using Experimental Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 161-178

  Adamowicz, Wiktor ^a   Alevy, Jonathan E ^b   List, John A ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 80053253117     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4337/9781847203045.00013     Document Type: Chapter

References (30)

1. Adamowicz, W.L. (2000), 'Environmental valuation case studies', J. Louviere, D. Hensher and J. Swait (eds), Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 329-53.
2. Adamowicz,W.L., P. Boxall, M.Williams and J. Louviere (1998), 'Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation', American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80(1), 64-75.
3. Alevy, J.E., J.A. List and W. Adamowicz (2003), 'More is less preference reversals and nonmarket valuation', University of Maryland College Park working paper.
4. Bazerman, M.H.,G.F. Loewenstein and S.B.White (1992), 'Reversals of preference in allocation decisions: judging an alternative versus choosing among alternatives', Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(2), pp. 220-40.
5. Bazerman, M.H., D.A. Moore, A.E. Tenbrunsel, K.A. Wade-Benzoni and S. Blount (1999), 'Explaining how preferences change across joint versus separate evaluation', Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 39, 41-58.
6. Bazerman, M.H., A.E. Tenbrunsel and K.Wade-Benzoni (1998), 'Negotiating with yourself and losing: making decisions with competing internal preferences', Acadamy of Management Review, 23(2), 225-41.
7. Boxall, P.C., W.L. Adamowicz, J. Swait, M. Williams and J. Louviere (1996), 'A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation', Ecological Economics, 18(3), 243-53.
8. Camerer, C., S. Issacharoff, G. Loewenstein, T. O'Donoghue and M. Rabin (2003), 'Regulation for conservatives: behavioral economics and the case for "asymmetric paternalism" ', Penn Law Review, 151, 1211-54.
9. Chaikin, S. and Y. Trope (1999), Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology, New York: Guilford Press.
10. Gilovich, T., D. Griffin and D. Kahneman (2002), Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. Grether, D. and C. Plott (1979), 'Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon', American Economic Review, 69, 623-38.
12. Hsee, C.K. (1996), 'The evaluability hypothesis: an explanation of preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives', Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 247-57.
13. Hsee, C.K. (1998), 'Less is better: when low-value options are valued more highly than high-value options', Journal of Economic Behavior and Decision-Making, 11, 107-21.
14. Hsee, C.K., G.F. Loewenstein, S. Blount and M.A. Bazerman (1999), 'Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: a review and theoretical analysis', Psychological Bulletin, 125(5), 576-90.
15. Irwin, J.R., P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein and G.H. McClelland (1993), 'Preference reversals and the measurement of environmental values', Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 6, 5-18.
16. Kagel, J.H. and A.E. Roth (1995), The Handbook of Experimental Economics, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
17. Kahneman,D. and S. Frederick (2002), 'Representativeness revisited: attribute substitution in intuitive judgment', in T. Gilovich, D. Griffin and D. Kahneman (eds), Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Thought, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49-81.
18. Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky (2000), Choices, Value and Frames, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Knetsch, J.L. (2002), 'Policy analysis and design with losses valued more than gains and varying rates of time preference', in R. Gowda and J.C. Fox (eds), Judgments, Decisions, and Public Policy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 91-115.
20. List, J.A. (2002), 'Preference reversals of a different kind: the "more is less" phenomenon', American Economic Review, 92(5), 1636-43.
21. List, J.A. (2003), 'Scientific numerology, preference anomalies, and environmental policymaking', Environmental and Resource Economics.
22. Louviere, J.J., D.A. Hensher and J.D. Swait (2000), Stated Choice Models: Analysis and Application, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Magat,W.A.,W.K. Viscusi and J. Huber (1988), 'Paired comparison and contingent valuation approaches to morbidity risk valuation', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 15(4), 395-411.
24. OMB (2003), 'Draft 2003 report to Congress on the costs and benefits of federal regulations', at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/2003draft_cost-benefit_rpt.pdf.
25. Patt, A. and R.J. Zeckhauser (2002), 'Behavioral perceptions and policies toward the environment', R. Gowda and J.C. Fox (eds), Judgments, Decisions, and Public Policy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 265-302.
26. Schelling, T.C. (1984), Choice and Consequence: Perspectives of an Errant Economist, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
27. Shafir, E. (2002), 'Cognition, intuition, and policy guidelines', in R. Gowda and J.C. Fox (eds), Judgments, Decisions, and Public Policy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 71-88.
28. Slovic, P. and S. Lichtenstein (1968), 'Relative importance of probabilities and payoffs in risk taking', Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78, 1-18.
29. Stevens, T.H., R. Belkner, D. Dennis, D. Kittredge and C. Willis (2000), 'Comparison of contingent valuation and conjoint analysis in ecosystem management', Ecological Economics, 32(1), 63-74.
30. Takatsuka, Y., J. Kahn and S. Stewart (2002), 'Choice model and contingent valuation estimates of the value of ecosystem attributes', working paper, University of Tennessee.