Skip to main content
PMC home page
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 1994;9(1):5–37. doi: 10.1007/BF01073401

Determinants of stated willingness to pay for public goods: A study in the headline method

Daniel Kahneman 1, Ilana Ritov 2
PMCID: PMC7101763  PMID: 32288199

Abstract

Respondents were shown brief statements (“headlines”) referring to various threats to the environment or to public health, and other public issues. An intervention to deal with each problem was also introduced by a single sentence. Some respondents were asked to indicate their willingness to pay for the interventions by voluntary contributions. Others indicated their opinion of the intervention on a conventional rating scale, rated the personal satisfaction of contributing to it, or rated the importance of the problem. Group averages of these response measures were obtained for a large set of issues. Computed over issues, the rank-order correlations between the different measures were very high, suggesting that group averages of WTP and of other opinion statements are measures of the same public attitudes. Observed preference reversals and violations of monotonicity in contributions are better explained by a concept of attitude than by the notion of economic value that underlies the contingent valuation method. Contributions and purchases do not follow the same logic. Possible implications for the contingent valuation method are discussed.

Key words: contingent valuation, willingness-to-pay, preference reversals

References

  1. Andreoni James. Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods. A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving. Economic Journal. 1990;100:464–477. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ajzen Icek. Attitudes, Personality and Behavior. Chicago: Dorsey; 1988. [Google Scholar]
  3. Arrow Risk Perception in Psychology and in Economics. Economic Inquiry. 1982;20:1–9. [Google Scholar]
  4. Baron Jonathan. Heuristics and Biases in Equity Judgments: A Utilitarian Approach. In: Mellers B.A., Baron J., editors. Psychological Perspectives on Justice: Theory and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1993. pp. 109–137. [Google Scholar]
  5. Baron Jonathan, Ritov Ilana. Intuitions About Penalties and Compensation in the Context of Tort Law. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 1993;7:17–33. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bazerman Max H. Judgment in Managerial Decision Making. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 1990. [Google Scholar]
  7. Box G.E.P., Watson G.S. Robustness to Non-Normality of Regression Tests. Biometrika. 1962;49:93–106. [Google Scholar]
  8. Carson, Richard T. et al. (1992).A Contingent Valuation Study of Lost Passive Use Values Resulting from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. A report for the Attorney General of the State of Alaska, November 1992.
  9. Contingent Valuation Panel Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Federal Register. 1993;58(10):15. [Google Scholar]
  10. D'Arge Ralph C. Thirty-Fourth Annual Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute Proceedings. New York: Matthew Bendier and Co.; 1989. A Practical Guide to Economic Valuation of the Environment. [Google Scholar]
  11. Desvousges, William H. et al. (1992). “Measuring Non-Use Damages Using Contingent Valuation: An Experimental Evaluation of Accuracy,”Research Triangle Institute Monograph 92-1.
  12. Diamond Peter A., Hausman Jerry A. On Contingent Valuation Measurement of Non-Use Values. In: Hausman J.A., editor. Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. Amsterdam: North Holland Press; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  13. Diamond Peter A., et al. Does Contingent Valuation Measure Preferences? Experimental Evidence. In: Hausman J.A., et al., editors. Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. Amsterdam: North Holland Press; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  14. Eagly Alice H., Chaiken Shelly. The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  15. Fischhoff Baruch, Furby Lita. Measuring Values: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Transactions with Special Reference to Contingent Valuation of Visibility. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 1988;1:147–184. [Google Scholar]
  16. Fischhoff B., et al. Embedding Effects: Stimulus Representation and Response Mode. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 1993;6(3):211–234. [Google Scholar]
  17. Gilovich Thomas. How We Know What Isn 't So: The Fallibility of Human Reasoning in Everyday Life. New York: Free Press; 1991. [Google Scholar]
  18. Green Donald P. The Price of Elasticity of Mass Preferences. American Political Science Review. 1992;86(1):128–148. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hanemann, W. Michael. (1992). “Comments Concerning Non-Use Values and The Contingent Valuation Method.” Submitted to the NOAA panel on the CVM, July 22,1992.
  20. Irwin Julie R., et al. Preference Reversals and the Measurement of Environmental Values. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 1993;6:5–18. [Google Scholar]
  21. Kahneman Daniel, Knetsch Jack L. Valuing Public Goods: The Purchase of Moral Satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 1992;22:57–70. [Google Scholar]
  22. Kahneman Daniel, et al. Stated Willingness to Pay for Public Goods: A Psychological Perspective. Psychological Science. 1993;4:310–315. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kahneman Daniel, Slovic Paul, Tversky Amos. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1982. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Kemp Michael A., Maxwell Christopher. Exploring a budget context for contingent valuation estimates. In: Hausman J.A., editor. Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. Amsterdam: North Holland Press; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  25. Lazo, Jeffrey K. et al. (1992). “Can Contingent Valuation Measure Non-Use Values?”American Journal of Agricultural Economics (December), 1126–1132.
  26. Magat Wesley A., Viscusi W. Kip, Huber John. Paired Comparison and Contingent Valuation Approaches to Morbidity Risk Valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 1988;15:395–411. [Google Scholar]
  27. Margolis H. Selfishness, Altruism and Rationality. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1982. [Google Scholar]
  28. McClelland, Gary H. et al. (1992).Methods of Measuring Non-Use Values: A Contingent Valuation Study of Groundwater Cleanup. Center for Economic Analysis, University of Colorado.
  29. McFadden Daniel, Leonard Gregory K. Issues in the Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods. In: Hausman J.A., editor. Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. Amsterdam: North Holland Press; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  30. Nickerson, Carol A.E. (1994). “Does Willingness-to-Pay Reflect the Purchase of Moral Satisfaction? A Reconsideration of Kahneman and Knetsch,”Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, in press.
  31. Petty Richard E., Caccioppo John T. The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. In: Berkowitz L., editor. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 19. San Diego: Academic Press; 1986. pp. 123–205.. [Google Scholar]
  32. Randall, Alan, and John P. Hoehn. (1992). “Embedding Effects in Contingent Valuation: Implications for Natural Resource Damage Assessment.” Staff Paper No. 92-14, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University.
  33. Savage Ian. An Empirical Investigation on the Effect of Psychological Perceptions on the Willingness-To-Pay to Reduce Risk. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 1993;6(1):75–90. [Google Scholar]
  34. Schkade, David A., and John W. Payne. “How People Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions: A Verbal Protocol Analysis,”Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, in press.
  35. Seber G.A.F. Linear Regression Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1977. [Google Scholar]
  36. Smith V. Kerry. Arbitrary Values, Good Causes and Premature Verdicts. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 1992;22:71–89. [Google Scholar]
  37. Tolley, George S., and Alan Randall. (1983).Establishing and Valuing the Effects of Improved Visibility in the Eastern United States. Interim report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
  38. Tversky Amos, Kahneman Daniel. Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions. Journal of Business. 1986;59:S251–S278. [Google Scholar]
  39. Tversky Amos, Sattath Shmuel, Slovic Paul. Contingent Weighting in Judgment and Choice. Psychological Review. 1988;95:371–384. [Google Scholar]
  40. Tversky Amos, Slovic Paul, Kahneman Daniel. The Causes of Preference Reversal. American Economic Review. 1990;80:204–217. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Risk and Uncertainty are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES