Determining the value of an environmental public good, such as litigation over oil-spill damage to a beach, is an abstract and difficult task. Integration of economics and psychology enabled the study of how social responsibility and persuasive priming influenced the valuations of environmental public goods. Research participants were 460 university students randomly assigned to one of six combinations of social responsibility and either a negative, neutral, or positive priming editorial about the environment. Participants completed an interactive computer program in which the items were either environmental public goods (e.g., wildlife refuge, clean air) private goods of known market value (e.g., $15 meal, $500 airline ticket) or sums of money ranging from $1 to $9000. Results indicated the values derived for the environmental public goods were higher when participants had sole responsibility for the group outcome, but were not affected by priming editorials, although the editorials affected subsequent attitudes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arrow, K. J. , Solow, R., Portney, P. R., Leamer, E. E., Radner, R., & Schuman, H. (1993). Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register, 58(10), 4602-4614.
2.
Blocker, T. J. , & Eckberg, D. L. (1989). Environmental issues as women’s issues: General concerns and local hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 70, 586-593.
3.
Bock, R. D. , & Jones, L. V. (1968). The measurement and prediction of judgment and choice (R. R. Bush, Ed.). San Francisco: Holden-Day.
4.
Boyce, R. P. , Brown, T. C., McClelland, G. D., Peterson, G. L., & Schulze, W. D. (1992). Experimental examination of intrinsic values as a source of the WTA-WTP disparity. American Economic Review, 82, 1366-1373.
5.
Cambridge Economics, Inc. (1992). Contingent valuation: A critical assessment. Washington, DC: Author.
6.
Clarke, A. (1996). The paired comparison technique: A subterfuge for estimating relative nonmarket values for the things we love? Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins.
7.
David, H. A. (1988). The method of paired comparisons (A. Stuart, Ed.). London: Charles Griffin.
8.
Edwards, A. L. (1957). Techniques of attitude scale construction. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
9.
Fechner, G. T. (1860). Elemente der psychophysik. Leipzig, Germany: Breitkopf and Hartel.
10.
Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric methods (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
11.
Hamilton, L. C. (1985). Concern about toxic wastes: Three demographic predictors. Sociological Perspectives, 28, 463-486.
12.
Hopkins, J. A. , & Heady, E. O. (1962). Farm records and accounting (5th ed.). Ames: Iowa State University Press.
13.
Kahneman, D. , Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1325-1348.
14.
Kahneman, D. , Ritov, I., Jacowitz, K. E., & Grant, P. (1993). Stated willingness to pay for public goods: A psychological perspective. Psychological Science, 4(5), 310-315.
15.
Kendall, M. , & Gibbons, J. D. (1990). Rank correlation methods (5th ed.). Suffolk, UK: Hodder & Stoughton.
16.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. , & Oskamp, S. (1996). Psychology and sustainability: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 51(4), 1-14.
17.
Peterson, G. L. , Brown, T. C., McCollum, D. W., Bell, P. A., Birjulin, A. A., & Clarke, A. (1994). Estimation of willingness to accept compensation for public and private goods from the chooser reference point by the method of paired comparison. In R. C. Ready (Ed.), Benefits and costs transfer in natural resource planning (pp. 329-360). Seventh Interim Report of the W-133 Regional Research Project. Lexington: University of Kentucky.
18.
Peterson, G. L. , Brown, T. C., McCollum, D. W., Bell, P. A., Birjulin, A. A., & Clarke, A. (1995). Analysis of interpersonal differences in economic valuation of public and private goods by the method of paired comparison. Unpublished paper, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.
19.
Peterson, G. L. , Brown, T. C., McCollum, D. W., Bell, P. A., Birjulin, A. A., & Clarke, A. (1996). Chapter eight: Moral responsibility effects in valuation of WTA for public and private goods by the method of paired comparison. In W. L. Adamowicz, P. C. Boxall, M. K. Luckert, W. E. Phillips, & W. A. White (Eds.), Forestry, economics, and the environment (pp. 134-159). Oxfordshire, UK: CAB International.
20.
Portney, P. R. (1994). The contingent valuation debate: Why economists should care. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(4), 3-17.
21.
Sagoff, M. (1988). The economy of the earth: Philosophy, law and environment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22.
Sen, A. K. (1977). Rational fools: A critique of the behavioral foundations of economic theory. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 6, 317-344.
23.
Simon, H. (1985). Human nature in politics: The dialogue of psychology with political science. American Political Science Review, 79, 293-304.
24.
Simon, J. (1990). Population matters. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
25.
Smith, A. (1972). Supermoney (p. 286). New York: Random House.
26.
Steger, M. A. , & Witt, S. L. (1989). Gender differences in environmental orientations: A comparison of publics and activists in Canada and the U.S.Western Political Quarterly, 42, 627-649.
27.
Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34, 273-286.
28.
Torgerson, W. S. (1958). Theory and methods of scaling. New York: John Wiley.
29.
Tversky, A. (1969). Intransitivity of preferences. Psychological Review, 76, 31-38.
