IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v106y2008i2p143-152.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reference dependence in iterative choices

Author

Listed:
  • Huber, Joel
  • Viscusi, W. Kip
  • Bell, Jason

Abstract

Valuation of goods often proceeds from a series of hypothetical pairwise choices. We examine reference dependence on the outcome of such evaluations in a large-scale study in which respondents make a series of choices between areas that differ on cost of living and the quality of lakes and rivers. We uncover three substantial reference effects. First, we find that respondents' choices are altered by being told the national value of water quality. For these people, consistent with prospect theory, changes in water quality below the 65% referenced national standard are treated as losses and given more weight while identical changes above 65% are treated as gains and given less weight. Second, we find that the sequence of iterative choices matters in a surprising way. The iterations proceed by encouraging switching either by degrading the chosen alternative or improving the item chosen. We show that improving the item not chosen produces the greatest switching, a result consistent with prospect theory, but only if the item changed in the iteration becomes the reference alternative. Finally, we find a strong starting reference effect. That is, we show that the trade-off in the first choice reflected in the change in cost of living divided by the change in water quality has a substantial impact on the final valuation. We assess the relative impact of these three reference effects and suggest ways of dealing with them for valuation of non-market goods.

Suggested Citation

  • Huber, Joel & Viscusi, W. Kip & Bell, Jason, 2008. "Reference dependence in iterative choices," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 143-152, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:106:y:2008:i:2:p:143-152
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749-5978(07)00103-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kahneman, Daniel & Ritov, Ilana & Schkade, David A, 1999. "Economic Preferences or Attitude Expressions?: An Analysis of Dollar Responses to Public Issues," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 203-235, December.
    2. Eric J. Johnson & David A. Schkade, 1989. "Bias in Utility Assessments: Further Evidence and Explanations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(4), pages 406-424, April.
    3. Cooke, Alan D. J. & Mellers, Barbara A., 1995. "Attribute Range and Response Range: Limits of Compatibility in Multiattribute Judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 187-194, August.
    4. Keeney,Ralph L. & Raiffa,Howard, 1993. "Decisions with Multiple Objectives," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521438834, January.
    5. Highhouse, Scott & Johnson, Michael A., 1996. "Gain/Loss Asymmetry and Riskless Choice: Loss Aversion in Choices among Job Finalists," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 225-233, December.
    6. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, October.
    7. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    8. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    9. W. Kip Viscusi & Wesley A. Magat & Joel Huber, 1987. "An Investigation of the Rationality of Consumer Valuations of Multiple Health Risks," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 18(4), pages 465-479, Winter.
    10. Huber, Joel & Ariely, Dan & Fischer, Gregory, 2002. "Expressing Preferences in a Principal-Agent Task: A Comparison of Choice, Rating, and Matching," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 66-90, January.
    11. Rowe, Robert D. & D'Arge, Ralph C. & Brookshire, David S., 1980. "An experiment on the economic value of visibility," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 1-19, March.
    12. Baron, Jonathan & Ritov, Ilana, 2004. "Omission bias, individual differences, and normality," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 74-85, July.
    13. Kevin J. Boyle & Richard C. Bishop & Michael P. Welsh, 1985. "Starting Point Bias in Contingent Valuation Bidding Games," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(2), pages 188-194.
    14. Ritov, Ilana & Baron, Jonathan, 1999. "Protected Values and Omission Bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 79-94, August.
    15. Baron, Jonathan & Spranca, Mark, 1997. "Protected Values," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 1-16, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jason Bell & Joel Huber & W. Kip Viscusi, 2009. "Voter-weighted environmental preferences," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 655-671.
    2. W. Viscusi & Joel Huber & Jason Bell, 2012. "Heterogeneity in Values of Morbidity Risks from Drinking Water," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 52(1), pages 23-48, May.
    3. W. Viscusi & Joel Huber & Jason Bell, 2008. "Estimating discount rates for environmental quality from utility-based choice experiments," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 199-220, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:106:y:2008:i:2:p:143-152. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.