IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/usi/labsit/015.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

When does a referent problem affect willingness to pay for a public good?

Author

Listed:
  • Nicolao Bonini
  • Ilana Ritov
  • Michele Graffeo

Abstract

In two studies we examined the willingness to support action to remedy a public problem. In Study 1 people were asked whether they would financially contribute to solution of a public problem. In Study 2, people were asked whether they would sign a petition to support a public action. The aim was to test whether the willingness to support solution of a public problem is affected by the type of problem that is used as the referent. We hypothesized that the willingness to support a public action is lower when evaluated in the context of a high - as opposed to a low - importance referent problem (importance contrast effect). We also hypothesized that the importance contrast effect is tied to the perceived relatedness between the target and referent problems. The importance contrast effect should be found only when the two problems relate to different category domains. The findings bear out this prediction.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicolao Bonini & Ilana Ritov & Michele Graffeo, 2007. "When does a referent problem affect willingness to pay for a public good?," Labsi Experimental Economics Laboratory University of Siena 015, University of Siena.
    • Handle: RePEc:usi:labsit:015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.labsi.org/wp/labsi15.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dan Ariely & George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 2003. ""Coherent Arbitrariness": Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(1), pages 73-106.
    2. Kahneman, Daniel & Ritov, Ilana, 1994. "Determinants of Stated Willingness to Pay for Public Goods: A Study in the Headline Method," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 5-38, July.
    3. Irwin, Julie R & Slovic, Paul & Lichtenstein, Sarah & McClelland, Gary H., 1993. "Preference Reversals and the Measurement of Environmental Values," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 5-18, January.
    4. Jorgensen, Bradley S. & Syme, Geoffrey J. & Smith, Leigh M. & Bishop, Brian J., 2004. "Random error in willingness to pay measurement: A multiple indicators, latent variable approach to the reliability of contingent values," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 41-59, February.
    5. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    6. Cass R. Sunstein & Daniel Kahneman & David Schkade & Ilana Ritov, 2001. "Predictably Incoherent Judgements," Discussion Paper Series dp273, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    7. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2002. "Rational actors or rational fools: implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 329-342.
    8. Bonini, Nicolao & Biel, Anders & Garling, Tommy & Karlsson, Niklas, 2002. "Influencing what the money is perceived to be worth: Framing and priming in contingent valuation studies," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 655-663, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carola Braun & Katrin Rehdanz & Ulrich Schmidt, 2016. "Validity of Willingness to Pay Measures under Preference Uncertainty," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, April.
    2. Kniebes, Carola & Rehdanz, Katrin & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2014. "Validity of WTP measures under preference uncertainty," Kiel Working Papers 1972, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    3. Dan Ariely & Kristina Shampan'er, 2006. "How small is zero price? : the true value of free products," Working Papers 06-16, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    4. Jorge E. Araña & Carmelo J. León, 2012. "Scale-perception bias in the valuation of environmental risks," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(20), pages 2607-2617, July.
    5. Kees Vringer & Eline van der Heijden & Daan van Soest & Herman Vollebergh & Frank Dietz, 2017. "Sustainable Consumption Dilemmas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-21, June.
    6. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    7. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    8. Luchini, Stéphane & Watson, Verity, 2013. "Uncertainty and framing in a valuation task," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 204-214.
    9. Roth, Gerrit, 2006. "Predicting the Gap between Willingness to Accept and Willingness to Pay," Munich Dissertations in Economics 4901, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    10. David Blandford, 2010. "Presidential Address: The Visible or Invisible Hand? The Balance Between Markets and Regulation in Agricultural Policy," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 459-479, September.
    11. Hammitt, James K. & Herrera-Araujo, Daniel, 2018. "Peeling back the onion: Using latent class analysis to uncover heterogeneous responses to stated preference surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 165-189.
    12. Erik Brynjolfsson & Avinash Collis & Felix Eggers, 2019. "Using massive online choice experiments to measure changes in well-being," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116(15), pages 7250-7255, April.
    13. Kogut, Tehila & Ritov, Ilana, 2005. "The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint evaluations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 106-116, July.
    14. Kristen L. Kovalsky & Jayson L. Lusk, 2013. "Do Consumers Really Know How Much They Are Willing to Pay?," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1), pages 98-127, April.
    15. David Comerford & Liam Delaney & Colm Harmon, 2009. "Experimental Tests of Survey Responses to Expenditure Questions," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 30(Special I), pages 419-433, December.
    16. On Amir & Dan Ariely & Ziv Carmon, 2008. "The Dissociation Between Monetary Assessment and Predicted Utility," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(6), pages 1055-1064, 11-12.
    17. Whynes, David K. & Frew, Emma J. & Philips, Zoe N. & Covey, Judith & Smith, Richard D., 2007. "On the numerical forms of contingent valuation responses," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 462-476, August.
    18. Svedsater, Henrik, 2000. "Contingent valuation of global environmental resources: Test of perfect and regular embedding," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 21(6), pages 605-623, December.
    19. Shiell, Alan & Gold, Lisa, 2002. "Contingent valuation in health care and the persistence of embedding effects without the warm glow," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 251-262, April.
    20. Godwin Kofi Vondolia & Håkan Eggert & Ståle Navrud & Jesper Stage, 2014. "What do respondents bring to contingent valuation? A comparison of monetary and labour payment vehicles," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 253-267, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Willingness to support; joint evaluation; referent problem; category-bound thinking.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:usi:labsit:015. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Alessandro Innocenti (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lasieit.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.