The role of preferences in disagreements over scientific hypothesis: Evidence on cognitive bias in formation of beliefs
Have you ever heard the joke that if you ask three economists for an economic policy advice, you will get at least four different answers? This study takes the joke seriously by investigating whether an agent's wish for a scientific hypothesis to be true affects the agent's belief that the hypothesis is true. Using theories in psychology of cognitive bias we argue that, given certain circumstances, a positive preference–expectation relationship is actually expected, and we test the theoretical prediction using a sample of students in economics and science. The scientific hypothesis used in our empirical inquiry is the highly debated Porter hypothesis. The Porter hypothesis suggests that environmental regulations, such as those restricting firms to reduce pollution, stimulate innovations and create a win-win situation for the environment and for firms. Our results show that the students in economics who care more about the environment are more likely to believe in the Porter hypothesis. The results are in line with Fuchs et al. (1998) and Mayer (2001) who found that there is a correlation between economists’ policy positions and their ideological values.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 41 (2012)
Issue (Month): 4 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Boulding, Kenneth E, 1969. "Economics as a Moral Science," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(1), pages 1-12, March.
- Thomas Mayer, 2001.
"The role of ideology in disagreements among economists: a quantitative analysis,"
Journal of Economic Methodology,
Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 253-273.
- Thomas Mayer, "undated". "The Role Of Ideology In Disagreements Among Economists. A Quantitative Analisis:," Department of Economics 00-01, California Davis - Department of Economics.
- Thomas Mayer, 2003. "The role of ideology in disagreements among economists. A Quantitative Analisis:," Working Papers 01, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
- Victor R. Fuchs & Alan B. Krueger & James M. Poterba, 1998. "Economists' Views about Parameters, Values, and Policies: Survey Results in Labor and Public Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(3), pages 1387-1425, September.
- Yang, Sha & Markoczy, Livia & Qi, Min, 2007. "Unrealistic optimism in consumer credit card adoption," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 170-185, April.
- Maximilian Auffhammer, 2009. "The State of Environmental and Resource Economics: A Google Scholar Perspective," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(2), pages 251-269, Summer.
- Karen Palmer & Wallace E. Oates & Paul R. Portney, 1995. "Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 119-132, Fall.
- Michael E. Porter & Claas van der Linde, 1995. "Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 97-118, Fall.
- Daniel Bromley, 2004. "Reconsidering Environmental Policy: Prescriptive Consequentialism and Volitional Pragmatism," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(1), pages 73-99, May. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:41:y:2012:i:4:p:364-369. 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)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.