Advertisement

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 147–184 | Cite as

Measuring values: A conceptual framework for interpreting transactions with special reference to contingent valuation of visibility

  • Baruch Fischhoff
  • Lita Furby
Article

Abstract

People express their value for a good when they pay something for it. Interpretinggood andpayment very broadly, we offer a general analytical framework for characterizing such transactions. This framework is suitable for interpreting actual transactions as well as for creating hypothetical transactions for research purposes. It is described here both in general terms and with special application to one particular kind of transaction, contingent valuation studies in which individuals estimate the value of possible changes in atmospheric visibility. In these transactions, as in many others, risk (of undesired changes in visibility) is one principal feature; at least some uncertainty often surrounds other transaction features as well (For example: How much will visibility really change if I promise to pay for it? Will I really have to pay?). The framework presented here conceptualizes any transaction as involving (a) a good, (b) a payment, and (c) a social context within which the transaction is conducted. Each of these aspects in turn has a variety of features that might and in some cases should affect evaluations. For each such feature, the framework considers first the meaning of alternative specifications and then the difficulties of ensuring that they are understood and evaluated properly. As a whole, the framework provides an integrated approach to designing evaluation studies and interpreting their results.

Key words

contingent valuation value measurement transactions atmospheric visibility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Atkinson et al.S.S. Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology. New York; Wiley, in press.Google Scholar
  2. Bar Hillel, M. The Subjective Probability of Compound Events.Organizational Behavior and Human Performances (Vol. 9, 1973), pp 396–406.Google Scholar
  3. Bazerman, M.H. & Lewicki, R.J., eds.Negotiating in Organizations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1983.Google Scholar
  4. Beyth-Marom, R. How Probable is ‘Probable’?Journal of Forecasting (Vol. 1, 1982), pp 257–269.Google Scholar
  5. Bishop, R.C. & Heberlein, T.A. Does Contingent Valuation Work? In: R.G., Cummings, D.S., Brookshire, and W.D., Schulze, eds.,Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld, 1986, pp 123–147.Google Scholar
  6. Brehm, J.A Theory of Reactance. New York: Academic Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  7. Boyle, K.J., Bishop, R.C. & Welsh, M.P.. Starting Point Bias in Contingent Valuation Bidding Games,Land Economics (Vol. 61, 1969), pp 188–194.Google Scholar
  8. Burton, I., Kates, R.W., & White, C.F.The Environment as Hazard. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  9. Coombs, C.H.A Theory of Data. New York: Wiley, 1964.Google Scholar
  10. Coursey, D.L., et al.Experimental Methods for Assessing Environmental Benefits: Volume II. Draft report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1984.Google Scholar
  11. Coursey, D.L. & Schulze, W.D. The Application of Experimental Economics to the Contingent Valuation of Public Goods.Public Choice (Vol. 49, No. 1, 1986), pp 47–68.Google Scholar
  12. Cox, L.A. Jr. Theory of Regulatory Benefits Assessment: Econometric and Expressed Preference Approaches. In: J.D., Bentkover, V.T., Covello, and J., Mumpower, eds.,Benefits Assessment. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1985.Google Scholar
  13. Cummings, R.G., Brookshire, D.S. & Schulze, W.D., eds.Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld, 1986.Google Scholar
  14. Dawes, R.M.Rational Choice in an Uncertain World. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, in press.Google Scholar
  15. Fischhoff, B. & Cox, L.A. Jr. Conceptual Framework for Regulatory Benefits Assessment. In: J.D., Bentkover, V.T., Covello, and J., Mumpower, eds.,Benefits Assessment. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1985.Google Scholar
  16. Fischhoff, B. & Furby, L.A Review and Critique of Tolley, Randall et al., “Establishing and Valuing the Effects of Improved Visibility in the Eastern United States”. ERI Technical Report 87–6. Eugene, OR: Eugene Research Institute, 1987.Google Scholar
  17. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. Measuring Labile Values. In: T.S., Wallsten, ed.,Cognitive Processes in Judgment and Choice Behavior Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1980.Google Scholar
  18. Fitts, P. & Posner, M.Human Performance. Belmont, CA: Brooks-Cole, 1965.Google Scholar
  19. Freeman, A.M.The Benefits of Environmental Improvement: Theory and Practice. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  20. Furby, L. Psychological Studies of Justice. In: R.C., Cohen, ed.,Justice: Views from the Social Sciences. New York: Plenum, 1986.Google Scholar
  21. Gibson, M., ed.,Risk Consent and Air. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allenheld, 1983.Google Scholar
  22. Groves, T. & Ledyard, J. Optimal Allocation of Public Goods: A solution to the Free Rider Problem.Econometrica (Vol. 45, 1977), pp 783–809.Google Scholar
  23. Jones-Lee, M.W.The Value of Life: An Economic Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  24. Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk,Econometrica (Vol. 47, 1979), pp 263–291.Google Scholar
  25. Knetsch, J.L. & Sinden, J.A. Willingness to Pay and Compensation Demanded: Experimental Evidence of an Unexpected Disparity in Measures of Value.Quarterly Journal of Economics (Vol. 100, 1984), pp 507–521.Google Scholar
  26. Maler, J. A Note on the Use of Property Values in Estimating Marginal Willingness to Pay for Environmental Quality.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management (Vol. 4, 1977), pp 355–369.Google Scholar
  27. Malm, W., et al. Human Perception of Visual Air Quality (Uniform Haze).Atmospheric Environment (Vol. 15, 1981), pp 1875–1890.Google Scholar
  28. McGuire, W.J. Suspiciousness of Experimenters' Intent. In: R., Rosenthal and R.L., Rosnow, eds.,Artifacts in behavorial Research. New York: Academic Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  29. Middleton, P., Stewart, T.R., & Leary, J. On the Use of Human Judgment and Physical/Chemical Measurements in Visual Air Quality Management.Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association (Vol. 35, No. 1, 1985), pp 11–18.Google Scholar
  30. Mitchell, R.C. & Carson, R.T.Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. In press.Google Scholar
  31. Mosteller, F.A. & Tukey, J.Exploratory Data Analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1976.Google Scholar
  32. National Research Council.Survey Measures of Subjective Phenomena. Washington, DC: Author, 1982.Google Scholar
  33. Peterson, C.R. & Beach, L.R. Man as an Intuitive Statistician.Psychological Bulletin (Vol. 68, 1967), pp 29–46.Google Scholar
  34. Rokeach, M.The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  35. Rosenthal, R. & Rosnow, R.L., eds.Artifacts in Behavioral Research. New York: Academic Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  36. Rowe, R.D. & Chestnut, L.G.The Value of Visibility: Theory and Application. Cambridge: Abt Books, 1982.Google Scholar
  37. Smith, T.W. Non Attitudes: A Review and Evaluation. In: C.F., Turner & E., Martin, eds.,Surveying Subjective Phenomena. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1985.Google Scholar
  38. Smith, V.K. To Keep or Toss the Contingent Valuation Method. In: R.G., Cummings, D.S., Brookshire, & W.D., Schulze, eds.,Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld, 1986, pp 162–179.Google Scholar
  39. Smith, V.K. & Desvousges, W.H.Measuring Water Quality Benefits. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing, 1986.Google Scholar
  40. Stokols, D. & Altman, I., eds.,Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1986.Google Scholar
  41. Thaler, R. Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice.Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization (Vol. 1, 1980), pp 39–60.Google Scholar
  42. Thaler, R. & Rosen, S. The Value of Saving a Life: Evidence from the Labor Market. In: N., Terleckyj, ed.,Household Production and Consumption. New York: Columbia University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  43. Thaler, R.H. & Shefrin, H.M. An Economic Theory of Self Control.Journal of Political Economy (Vol. 89, 1981), pp 392–406.Google Scholar
  44. Tolley, G. et al.Establishing and Valuing the Effects of Improved Visibility in Eastern United States (USEPA Grant #807768–01–0). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986.Google Scholar
  45. Tribe, L.H. Policy Science: Analysis or Ideology?Philosophy and Public Affairs (Vol. 2, 1972), pp 66–110.Google Scholar
  46. Tufte, E.Visual Display of Quantitative Data. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  47. Turner, C. & Martin, E.Measuring Subjective Phenomena (2 vols). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1985.Google Scholar
  48. Vickrey, W. Auctions, Markets, and Optimal Allocation. In: Y., Amihud, ed.,Bidding and Auctioning for Procurement and Allocation. New York: New York University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  49. Viscusi, W.K.Risk by Choice: Regulating Health Safety in the Work Place. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  50. Wright, P. Writing Technical Information.Review of Research in Education. 1987.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Baruch Fischhoff
  • Lita Furby

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations