Individual sensitivity to framing effects
Surveys are sometimes viewed with suspicion when used to provide economic values, since they are sensitive to framing effects. However, the extent to which those effects may vary between individuals has received little attention. Are some individuals less sensitive to framing effects than others? We use the theory of social representation to assign to each individual a new variable to serve as a proxy for the individual's sensitivity to framing effects. This allows to gather new and relevant information to limit the impact of framing effects. We examine two framing effects, starting-point bias and illingness-to-pay and willingness-to-accept divergence.
|Date of creation:||Jul 2008|
|Date of revision:|
|Publication status:||Published in Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Elsevier, 2008, 67 (1), pp.296-307. <10.1016/j.jebo.2006.10.006>|
|Note:||View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00176025|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/|
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.:
- Shogren, Jason F. & Shin, Seung Youll & Hayes, Dermot J. & Kliebenstein, James, 1994.
"Resolving Differences in Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept,"
Staff General Research Papers Archive
701, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- Shogren, Jason F. & Seung Y. Shin & Dermot J. Hayes & James B. Kliebenstein, 1994. "Resolving Differences in Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(1), pages 255-70, March.
- Brookshire, David S & Coursey, Don L, 1987. "Measuring the Value of a Public Good: An Empirical Comparison of Elicitation Procedures," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(4), pages 554-66, September.
- Cameron Trudy Ann & Quiggin John, 1994.
"Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up Questionnaire,"
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,
Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 218-234, November.
- Trudy Ann Cameron & John Quiggin, 1992. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data From a "Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up" Questionnaire," UCLA Economics Working Papers 653, UCLA Department of Economics.
- John C. Whitehead, 2002. "Incentive Incompatibility and Starting-Point Bias in Iterative Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(2), pages 285-297.
- Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996.
"Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning,"
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,
Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 112-131, January.
- Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Staff General Research Papers Archive 1501, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- Viaud, Jean & Roland-Levy, Christine, 2000. "A positional and representational analysis of consumption. Households when facing debt and credit," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 411-432, August.
- Hollard, G. & Luchini, S., 1999. "Theories du choix social et representations: analyse d'une enquete sur le tourisme cert en Camargue," G.R.E.Q.A.M. 99b06, Universite Aix-Marseille III.
- Smith, V. Kerry, 1985. "Some Issues In Discrete Response Contingent Valuation Studies," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 14(1), April.
- John A. List, 2003.
"Does Market Experience Eliminate Market Anomalies?,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
Oxford University Press, vol. 118(1), pages 41-71.
- John List, 2003. "Does market experience eliminate market anomalies?," Natural Field Experiments 00297, The Field Experiments Website.
- John A. List, 2004.
"Neoclassical Theory Versus Prospect Theory: Evidence from the Marketplace,"
Econometric Society, vol. 72(2), pages 615-625, 03.
- John List, 2004. "Neoclassical theory versus prospect theory: Evidence from the marketplace," Framed Field Experiments 00174, The Field Experiments Website.
- John A. List, 2003. "Neoclassical Theory Versus Prospect Theory: Evidence from the Marketplace," NBER Working Papers 9736, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Hanemann, W. Michael, 1985. "Some Issues In Continuous - And Discrete - Response Contingent Valuation Studies," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 14(1), April.
- Levin, Irwin P. & Schneider, Sandra L. & Gaeth, Gary J., 1998. "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 149-188, November.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:cesptp:halshs-00176025. 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: (CCSD)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.