Advertisement

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 19, Issue 1–3, pp 203–235 | Cite as

Economic Preferences or Attitude Expressions?: An Analysis of Dollar Responses to Public Issues

  • Daniel Kahneman
  • Ilana Ritov
  • David Schkade
Article

Abstract

Participants in contingent valuation surveys and jurors setting punitive damages in civil trials provide answers denominated in dollars. These answers are better understood as expressions of attitudes than as indications of economic preferences. Well-established characteristics of attitudes and of the core process of affective valuation explain several robust features of dollar responses: high correlations with other measures of attractiveness or aversiveness, insensitivity to scope, preference reversals, and the high variability of dollar responses relative to other measures of the same attitude.

preferences attitudes contingent valuation psychology and economics utility assessment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, Norman. (1996). A Functional Theory of Cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Arrow, Kenneth. (1982). “Risk Perception in Psychology and Economics,” Economic Inquiry 20, 1–9.Google Scholar
  3. Baron, Jonathan and Joshua Greene. (1996). “Determinants of Insensitivity to Quantity in Valuation of Public Goods: Contribution, Warm Glow, Budget Constraints, Availability, and Prominence,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 2, 107–125.Google Scholar
  4. Barsalou, Lawrence. (1992). Cognitive Psychology: An Overview for Cognitive Scientists. NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Bartels, Larry M. (1998). “Democracy With Attitudes,” Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Political Science Association, Boston.Google Scholar
  6. Carson, Richard, Michael Hanemann, Raymond Kopp, John Krosnick, Robert Mitchell, Stanley Presser, Paul Ruud, and V. Kerry Smith. (1994). Prospective Interim Lost Use Value Due to DDT and PCB Contamination in the Southern California Bight. La Jolla, CA: Natural Resource Damage Assessment.Google Scholar
  7. Carson, Richard and Robert Mitchell. (1993). “The Issue of Scope in Contingent Valuation Studies,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75, 1263–1267.Google Scholar
  8. Carson, Richard and Robert Mitchell. (1995). “Sequencing and Nesting in Contingent Valuation Surveys,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28, 155–173.Google Scholar
  9. Chapman, Gretchen, and Brian Bornstein. (1996). “The More You Ask for the More You Get: Anchoring in Personal Injury Verdicts,” Applied Cognitive Psychology 10, 519–540.Google Scholar
  10. Cummings, Ronald, Glenn Harrison, and Elizabeth Rutstrom. (1995). “Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?” American Economic Review 85, 260–266.Google Scholar
  11. DeKay, Michael and Gary McClelland. (1996). “Probability and Utility Components of Endangered Species Preservation Programs,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 2, 60–83.Google Scholar
  12. Desvousges, William, F. Reed Johnson, Richard Dunford, Kevin Boyle, Sarah Hudson, and K. Nicole Wilson. (1992). Measuring Non-Use Damages Using Contingent Valuation: An Experimental Evaluation of Accuracy. Research Triangle Institute Monograph 92–1.Google Scholar
  13. Diamond, Peter. (1996). “Testing the Internal Consistency of Contingent Valuation Surveys.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30, 337–347.Google Scholar
  14. Diamond, Peter, John Hausman, Gregory Leonard, and Michael Denning. (1993). “Does Contingent Valuation Measure Preferences? Experimental Evidence.” In J. A. Hausman ed., Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  15. Diamond, Peter and John Hausman. (1994). “Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better Than No Number?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 8, 45–64.Google Scholar
  16. Eagly, Alice and Shelley Chaiken. (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  17. Eagly, Alice and Shelley Chaiken. (1996). “Attitude Structure and Function.” In Gilbert, D., S. Fiske, and G. Lindzey eds., The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  18. Fazio, Russell, David Sanbonmatsu, Martha Powell, and Frank Kardes. (1986). “On the Automatic Activation of Attitudes.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50, 229–238.Google Scholar
  19. Fischhoff, Baruch. (1991). “Value Elicitation: Is There Anything in There?” American Psychologist 46, 835–847.Google Scholar
  20. Foster, Vivien, Ian J. Bateman, and David Harley. (1997). “Real and Hypothetical Willingness to Pay for Environmental Preservation: A Non-Experimental Comparison,” Journal of Agricultural Economics 48, 123–138.Google Scholar
  21. Frederick, Shane and Baruch Fischhoff. (1998). “Scope In Sensitivity in Elicited Valuations,” Risk Decision and Policy 3, 109–123.Google Scholar
  22. Green, Donald, Karen Jacowitz, Daniel Kahneman, and Daniel McFadden. (1998). “Referendum Contingent Valuation, Anchoring, and Willingness to Pay for Public Goods.” Resource and Energy Economics 20, 85–116.Google Scholar
  23. Griffin, Dale and Amos Tversky. (1992). “The Weighing of Evidence and the Determinants of Confidence,” Cognitive Psychology 24, 411–435.Google Scholar
  24. Hanemann, Michael. (1994). “Valuing the Environment Through Contingent Valuation,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 8, 19–43.Google Scholar
  25. Hastie, Reid, David Schkade, and John Payne. (1999). “Juror Judgments in Civil Cases: Effects of Plaintiff's Request and Plaintiff's Identity on Punitive Damage Awards.” Law and Human Behavior 23, 445–470.Google Scholar
  26. Hoehn, John and Alan Randall. (1987). “Too Many Proposals Pass the Benefit Cost Test,” American Economic Review 79, 544–551.Google Scholar
  27. Hsee, Chris. (1996). “The Evaluability Principle: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 67, 247–257.Google Scholar
  28. Jacowitz, Karen and Daniel Kahneman. (1995). “Measures of Anchoring in Estimation Tasks,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21, 1161–1166.Google Scholar
  29. Jones-Lee, Michael, Graham Loomes, and P. Philips. (1995). “Valuing the Prevention of Non-Fatal Road Injuries: Contingent Valuation vs. Standard Gambles,” Oxford Economic Papers 47, 676–695.Google Scholar
  30. Kahneman, Daniel. (1986). “Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valua-tion Method.” In R. Cummings, D. Brookshire, and W. Schulze eds. Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Totowa, NJ.Google Scholar
  31. Kahneman, Daniel. (1995). “Extension Neglect and Violations of Monotonicity in Judgment and Preference: Three Examples,” Bartlett Lecture to the Experimental Psychology Society UK.Google Scholar
  32. Kahneman, Daniel, Barbara Fredrickson, Charles Schreiber, and Don Redelmeier. (1993). “When More Pain Is Preferred to Less,” Psychological Science 4, 401–405.Google Scholar
  33. Kahneman, Daniel and Jack Knetsch. (1992). “Valuing Public Goods: The Purchase of Moral Satisfaction,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22, 57–70.Google Scholar
  34. Kahneman, Daniel, Jack Knetsch, and Richard Thaler. (1991). “The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 193–206.Google Scholar
  35. Kahneman, Daniel and Dale Miller. (1986). “Norm Theory: Comparing Reality to Its Alternatives,” Psychological Review 93, 136–153.Google Scholar
  36. Kahneman, Daniel and Ilana Ritov. (1994). “Determinants of Stated Willingness to Pay for Public Goods: A Study in the Headline Method,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 9, 5–38.Google Scholar
  37. Kahneman, Daniel, David Schkade, Elana Ritov and Cass Sunstein. (1999). “Reversals of judgement; The effect of cross-category comparisons intendedly absolute scales,” manuscript order review.Google Scholar
  38. Kahneman, Daniel, David Schkade, and Cass Sunstein. (1998). “Shared Outrage and Erratic Awards: The Psychology of Punitive Damages,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 16, 49–86.Google Scholar
  39. Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky. (1972). “Subjective Probability: A Judgment of Representativeness.” Cognitive Psychology 3, 430–454.Google Scholar
  40. Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky. (1973). “On the Psychology of Prediction.” Psychological Review 80, 237–254.Google Scholar
  41. Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky. (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,” Econometrica 47, 263–291.Google Scholar
  42. Kahneman, Daniel, Peter Wakker, and Rakesh Sarin. (1997). “Back to Bentham? Explorations of Experienced Utility,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 112, 375–405.Google Scholar
  43. Kemp, Michael and Christopher Maxwell. (1993). “Exploring a Budget Context for Contingent Valua-tion.” In Hausman ed., Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  44. Koehler, Jonathan. (1996). “The Base-Rate Fallacy Reconsidered: Descriptive, Normative, and Methodological Challenges.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19, 1–53.Google Scholar
  45. Levav, Jonathan. (1996). “Questioning Contingent Valuation: Maximality and Violations of Monotonicity in Willingness-to-Pay for Public Goods,” Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Princeton University.Google Scholar
  46. Lodge, Milton. (1981). “Magnitude Scaling: Quantitative Measurement of Opinions.” InJ. Sullivan ed., Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Vol. 25. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  47. Loomis, John, Armando Gonzalez-Caban, and Robin Gregory. (1994). “Do Reminders of Substitutes and Budget Constraints Influence Contingent Valuation Estimates?” Land Economics 70, 499–506.Google Scholar
  48. McFadden, Daniel. (1994). “Contingent Valuation and Social Choice,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76, 689–708.Google Scholar
  49. McFadden, Daniel. (1999). “Rationality for Economists,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19, 73–106.Google Scholar
  50. McFadden, Daniel and Gregory Leonard. (1993). “Issues in the Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods: Methodologies for Data Collection and Analysis.” In Hausman ed., Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  51. Mitchell, Robert and Richard Carson. (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  52. Neill, Helen. (1995). “The Context for Substitutes in CVM Studies: Some Empirical Observations,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29, 393–397.Google Scholar
  53. Nickerson, Carol. (1995). “Does Willingness-to-Pay Reflect the Purchase of Moral Satisfaction? A Reconsideration of Kahneman and Knetsch,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28, 126–133.Google Scholar
  54. NOAA panel report. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion. (1993). “Natural Resource Damage Assessments under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990,” Federal Register 58, 4601–4614.Google Scholar
  55. Novemsky, Nathan and Shirit Kronzon. (1999). “How Are Base-Rates Used, When They Are Used: A Comparison of Bayesian and Additive Models of Base-Rate Use,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 12, 55–69.Google Scholar
  56. Osgood, Charles, George Suci, and Percy Tannenbaum. (1957). The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  57. Payne, John, James Bettman, and Eric Johnson. (1992). “Behavioral Decision Research: A Constructive Processing Perspective.” Annual Review of Psychology 43, 87–131.Google Scholar
  58. Payne, John W., James R. Bettman, and David A. Schkade. (1999). “Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19, 243–270.Google Scholar
  59. Payne, John, David Schkade, William Desvousges, and Chris Aultman. (1999). “Valuation of Multiple Environmental Programs: A Psychological Analysis,” Unpublished manuscript, Duke University.Google Scholar
  60. Pratto, F. (1994). “Consciousness and Automatic Evaluation.” In Paula M. Niedenthal and Shinobu Kitayama Eds., The Heart's Eye: Emotional Influences in Perception and Attention. Academic Press, Inc, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  61. Quattrone, George and Amos Tversky. (1984). “Causal Versus Diagnostic Contingencies: On Self-Deception and the Voter's Illusion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46, 237–248.Google Scholar
  62. Randall, Alan and John Hoehn. (1996). “Embedding in Market Demand Systems,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30, 369–380.Google Scholar
  63. Ritov, Ilana, Jonathan Baron, and John Hershey. (1993). “Framing Effects in the Evaluation of Multiple Risk Reduction,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 6, 145–159.Google Scholar
  64. Ritov, Ilana. (1996). “Anchoring in a Simulated Competitive Market Negotiation,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 67, 16–25.Google Scholar
  65. Rosch, Eleanor and Barbara Lloyd. (1978). Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  66. Rottenstreich, Yuval and Amos Tversky. (1997). “Unpacking, Repacking, and Anchoring: Advances in Support Theory,” Psychological Review, 104, 406–415.Google Scholar
  67. Rutherford, Murray, Jack Knetsch, and Thomas Brown. (1998). “Assessing Environmental Losses: Judgments of Importance and Damage Schedules,” Harvard Environmental Law Review, 22, 51–101.Google Scholar
  68. Schreiber, Charles and Daniel Kahneman. (2000). “Beyond the Peak and End Hypothesis: Exploring the Relation between Real-Time Pleasure and Retrospective Evaluations,” Journal of Experimental Psychology.Google Scholar
  69. Seip, Kalle and Jon Strand. (1992). “Willingness to Pay for Environmental Goods in Norway: A Contingent Valuation Study with Real Payment,” Environmental and Resource Economics 2, 91–106.Google Scholar
  70. Slovic, Paul. (1995). “The Construction of Preference,” American Psychologist, 50, 364–371.Google Scholar
  71. Smith, V. Kerry. (1992). “Arbitrary Values, Good Causes, and Premature Verdicts,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22, 71–89.Google Scholar
  72. Strack, Fritz and Thomas Mussweiler. (1997). “Explaining the Enigmatic Anchoring Effect: Mechanisms of Selective Accessibility,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73, 437–446.Google Scholar
  73. Stevens, Stanley S. (1975). Psychophysics. Introduction to Its Perceptual, Neural, and Social Prospects. Wiley: NY.Google Scholar
  74. Sunstein, Cass, Daniel Kahneman, and David Schkade. (1998). “Assessing Punitive Damages,” Yale Law Journal 107, 2071–2153.Google Scholar
  75. Tesser, Abraham and Leonard Martin. (1996). “The Psychology of Evaluation.” In E. T. Higgins, and A. Kruglanski eds., Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, pp. 400–432. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  76. Thaler, Richard. (1992). The Winner's Curse: Paradoxes and Anomalies of Economic Life. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  77. Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman. (1971). “Belief in the Law of Small Numbers,” Psychological Bulletin 76, 105–110.Google Scholar
  78. Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman. (1982). “Evidential Impact of Base Rates.” In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky eds., Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman. (1983). “Extensional vs. Intuitive Reasoning: The Conjunction Fallacy in Probability Judgment,” Psychological Review 90, 293–3l5.Google Scholar
  80. Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman. (1986). “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions,” Journal of Business 59, 251–278.Google Scholar
  81. Tversky, Amos and Richard Thaler. (1992). “Preference Reversals.” In R. H. Thaler ed., The Winner's Curse: Paradoxes of Economic Life. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  82. Varey, Carol and Daniel Kahneman. (1992). “Experiences Extended Across Time: Evaluation of Moments and Episodes,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 5, 169–185.Google Scholar
  83. Varian, Hal. (1984). Microeconomic Analysis. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  84. Wilson, Thomas, Christopher Houston, Kathryn Etling, and Nancy Brekke. (1996). “A New Look at Anchoring Effects: Basic Anchoring and Its Antecedents,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 125, 387–402.Google Scholar
  85. Zaller, John. (1992). The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Kahneman
    • 1
  • Ilana Ritov
    • 2
  • David Schkade
    • 3
  1. 1.Woodrow Wilson School of Public PolicyPrinceton UniversityPrinceton
  2. 2.Hebrew UniversityJerusalem
  3. 3.University of TexasAustin

Personalised recommendations