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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Atkinson et al.S.S. Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology. New York; Wiley, in press.
Bar Hillel, M. The Subjective Probability of Compound Events.Organizational Behavior and Human Performances (Vol. 9, 1973), pp 396–406.
Bazerman, M.H. & Lewicki, R.J., eds.Negotiating in Organizations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1983.
Beyth-Marom, R. How Probable is ‘Probable’?Journal of Forecasting (Vol. 1, 1982), pp 257–269.
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.
Brehm, J.A Theory of Reactance. New York: Academic Press, 1969.
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.
Burton, I., Kates, R.W., & White, C.F.The Environment as Hazard. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.
Coombs, C.H.A Theory of Data. New York: Wiley, 1964.
Coursey, D.L., et al.Experimental Methods for Assessing Environmental Benefits: Volume II. Draft report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1984.
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.
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.
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.
Dawes, R.M.Rational Choice in an Uncertain World. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, in press.
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.
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.
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.
Fitts, P. & Posner, M.Human Performance. Belmont, CA: Brooks-Cole, 1965.
Freeman, A.M.The Benefits of Environmental Improvement: Theory and Practice. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1979.
Furby, L. Psychological Studies of Justice. In: R.C., Cohen, ed.,Justice: Views from the Social Sciences. New York: Plenum, 1986.
Gibson, M., ed.,Risk Consent and Air. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allenheld, 1983.
Groves, T. & Ledyard, J. Optimal Allocation of Public Goods: A solution to the Free Rider Problem.Econometrica (Vol. 45, 1977), pp 783–809.
Jones-Lee, M.W.The Value of Life: An Economic Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk,Econometrica (Vol. 47, 1979), pp 263–291.
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.
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.
Malm, W., et al. Human Perception of Visual Air Quality (Uniform Haze).Atmospheric Environment (Vol. 15, 1981), pp 1875–1890.
McGuire, W.J. Suspiciousness of Experimenters' Intent. In: R., Rosenthal and R.L., Rosnow, eds.,Artifacts in behavorial Research. New York: Academic Press, 1969.
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.
Mitchell, R.C. & Carson, R.T.Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. In press.
Mosteller, F.A. & Tukey, J.Exploratory Data Analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1976.
National Research Council.Survey Measures of Subjective Phenomena. Washington, DC: Author, 1982.
Peterson, C.R. & Beach, L.R. Man as an Intuitive Statistician.Psychological Bulletin (Vol. 68, 1967), pp 29–46.
Rokeach, M.The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press, 1973.
Rosenthal, R. & Rosnow, R.L., eds.Artifacts in Behavioral Research. New York: Academic Press, 1969.
Rowe, R.D. & Chestnut, L.G.The Value of Visibility: Theory and Application. Cambridge: Abt Books, 1982.
Smith, T.W. Non Attitudes: A Review and Evaluation. In: C.F., Turner & E., Martin, eds.,Surveying Subjective Phenomena. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1985.
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.
Smith, V.K. & Desvousges, W.H.Measuring Water Quality Benefits. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing, 1986.
Stokols, D. & Altman, I., eds.,Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1986.
Thaler, R. Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice.Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization (Vol. 1, 1980), pp 39–60.
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.
Thaler, R.H. & Shefrin, H.M. An Economic Theory of Self Control.Journal of Political Economy (Vol. 89, 1981), pp 392–406.
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.
Tribe, L.H. Policy Science: Analysis or Ideology?Philosophy and Public Affairs (Vol. 2, 1972), pp 66–110.
Tufte, E.Visual Display of Quantitative Data. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press, 1983.
Turner, C. & Martin, E.Measuring Subjective Phenomena (2 vols). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1985.
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.
Viscusi, W.K.Risk by Choice: Regulating Health Safety in the Work Place. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983.
Wright, P. Writing Technical Information.Review of Research in Education. 1987.
Additional information
Eugene Research Institute and Carnegie Mellon University
Eugene Research Institute
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fischhoff, B., Furby, L. Measuring values: A conceptual framework for interpreting transactions with special reference to contingent valuation of visibility. J Risk Uncertainty 1, 147–184 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00056166
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00056166