Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cognitive ability and scale bias in the contingent valuation method

An analysis of willingness to pay to reduce mortality risk

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigates whether or not the scale bias found in contingent valuation (CVM) studies on mortality risk reductions is a result of cognitive constraints among respondents. Scale bias refers to insensitivity and non-near-proportionality of the respondents’ willingness to pay (WTP) to the size of the risk reduction. Two hundred Swedish students participated in an experiment in which their cognitive ability was tested before they took part in a CVM-study asking them about their WTP to reduce bus-mortality risk. The results imply that WTP answers from respondents with a higher cognitive ability are less flawed by scale bias.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Barthomolew DJ (1987). Latent variable models and factor analysis. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann M, Hanley N, Hett T, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Özdemiroḡlu E, Pearce DW, Sugden R and Swanson J (2002). Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin DJ and Shapiro JM (2005). Does cognitive ability reduce psychological bias?   . Harvard University, Mimeo

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson F, Johansson-Stenman O and Martinsson P (2004). Is transport safety more valuable in the air?. J Risk Uncertainty 28(2): 147–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson RT and Mitchell RC (1995). Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys. J Environ Econ Manage 28(2): 155–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson RT, Flores NE and Meade NF (2001). Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ Resour Econ 19(2): 173–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark J and Friesen L (2006). The causes of order effects in contingent valuation surveys: an experimental investigation. University of Canterbury, New Zealand, Mimeo

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Diamond PA and Hausman JA (1994). Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number?   .  J Econ Perspect 8(4): 45–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Duckworth AL and Seligman ME (2005). Self-discioline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychol Sci 16(12): 939–944

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederick S (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. J Econ Perspect 19(4): 25–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederick S and Fischhoff B (1998). Scope (In)sensitivity in elicited valuations. J Risk Decision Policy 3(2): 109–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammitt JK and Graham JD (1999). Willingness to pay for health protection: inadequate sensitivity to probability. J Risk Uncertainty 18(1): 33–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammar H and Johansson-Stenman O (2004). The value of risk-free cigarettes – do smokers underestimate the risk?   .  Health Econ 13(1): 59–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N and Shogren J (2005). Is cost-benefit analysis anomaly proof?. Environ Resour Econ 32(1): 13–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison GW (2006). Experimental evidence on alternative environmental valuation methods. Environ Resour Econ 34(1): 125–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones-Lee MW (1974). The value of changes in the probability of death or injury. J Political Econ 82(4): 835–849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics. Am Econ Rev 93(5): 1449–1475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D and Tversky A (1972). Subjective probability: a judgement of representativeness. Cogn Psychol 3(3): 430–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D and Tversky A (1983). Can irrationality be intelligently discussed?   .  Behav Brain Sci 6: 509–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Slovic P and Tversky A (1982). Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawley DN and Maxwell AE (1963). Factor analysis as a statistical method. Butterworths, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabin M (2002). Inference by believers in the law of small numbers. Quart J Econ 117(3): 775–816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SIKA (2007) Vägtrafikskador 2002–2005 (Road traffic injuries 2002–2005). Internet, www.sika-institute.se, 4/26/07

  • Smith VK (1992). Arbitrary values, good causes and premature verdicts. J Environ Econ Manage 22(1): 71–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugden R (2005). Anomalies and stated preference techniques: a framework for a discussion of coping strategies. Environ Resour Econ 32(1): 1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe R and Johnson S (1995). Personality as a predictor of college performance. Educ Psychol Measure 55: 177–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Transport Economics, Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI), P.O. Box 55685, Stockholm, 102 15, Sweden

    Henrik Andersson

  2. Department of Business, Economics, Statistics and Informatics, Örebro University, Örebor, Sweden

    Mikael Svensson

Authors
  1. Henrik Andersson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mikael Svensson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henrik Andersson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Andersson, H., Svensson, M. Cognitive ability and scale bias in the contingent valuation method. Environ Resource Econ 39, 481–495 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9137-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9137-0

Keywords

JEL Codes

Search

Navigation