Anomalies in the Values for Consumer Goods with Environmental Attributes

Many consumer products today present information regarding an environmental attribute (e.g., recycled content). This information can be expected to augment the other attributes, resulting in an overall increased interest in the product. However, previous research on preferences for environmental policies (e.g., an increase in air quality) suggests that environmental values are prone to anomalies. For example, respondents may refuse to provide a value or they may exhibit embedding effects, which means they may value two or more environmental goods less highly together than separately. Anomalies such as embedding violate commonsense assumptions regarding an attribute's contribution to the overall attractiveness of a product. These studies examined whether such anomalies obtain in the valuation of consumer goods with environmental attributes in different elicitation conditions. Study 1 established this anomaly for environmental attributes, in which the values were measured using pricing responses (i.e., 'how much would you be willing to pay?') for trades among consumer goods. Study 2 provided a controlled measurement (via a conjoint method) of the trade-offs between the environmental and nonenvironmental attributes and established the effect under this elicitation method. Study 3 extended the findings to conjoint tasks with pricing responses and explored the psychological mediators of embedding, including the role of moral involvement. Study 4 concentrated on possible inferential underpinnings of the effect and further established that the emotional and moral content of environmental attributes contributes to their susceptibility to anomalous valuation.

[1]  J. Payne,et al.  Product category familiarity and preference construction , 1998 .

[2]  Jonathan Baron,et al.  Regular ArticleProtected Values , 1997 .

[3]  Jonathan Baron,et al.  Determinants of insensitivity to quantity in valuation of public goods: Contribution, warm glow, budget constraints, availability, and prominence , 1996 .

[4]  Graham Loomes,et al.  VALUING THE PREVENTION OF NON-FATAL ROAD INJURIES: CONTINGENT VALUATION VS. STANDARD GAMBLES , 1995 .

[5]  A. Tversky,et al.  Weighing Risk and Uncertainty , 1995 .

[6]  R. Carson,et al.  Sequencing and Nesting in Contingent Valuation Surveys , 1995 .

[7]  J. Baron,et al.  An Exploratory Study of Choice Rules Favored for High-Stakes Decisions , 1995 .

[8]  M. Goldberg Social Marketing: Are We Fiddling While Rome Burns? , 1995 .

[9]  S. Satchell,et al.  Apprenticeships and Job Tenure , 1994 .

[10]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Stated Willingness to Pay for Public Goods: A Psychological Perspective , 1993 .

[11]  Baruch Fischhoff Transaction analysis: A framework and an application to insurance decisions , 1993 .

[12]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Preference reversals and the measurement of environmental values , 1993 .

[13]  David Biddle,et al.  Recycling for profit: The new green business frontier , 1993 .

[14]  John W. Payne,et al.  Where Do the Numbers Come From? How People Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions , 1993 .

[15]  W. Mead REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF STATE-OF-THE-ART CONTINGENT VALUATION STUDIES , 1993 .

[16]  Assessing Use Value Losses Caused by Natural Resource Injury , 1993 .

[17]  Jerry A. Hausman,et al.  Contingent valuation : a critical assessment , 1993 .

[18]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  Measuring Natural Resource Damages with Contingent Valuation: Tests of Validity and Reliability , 1993 .

[19]  V. Smith,et al.  Arbitrary values, good causes, and premature verdicts , 1992 .

[20]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction , 1992 .

[21]  J. Andreoni IMPURE ALTRUISM AND DONATIONS TO PUBLIC GOODS: A THEORY OF WARM-GLOW GIVING* , 1990 .

[22]  Robert Cameron Mitchell,et al.  Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method , 1989 .

[23]  John Elkington,et al.  The Green Consumer , 1989 .

[24]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Measuring values: A conceptual framework for interpreting transactions with special reference to contingent valuation of visibility , 1988 .

[25]  P. Slovic Perception of risk. , 1987, Science.

[26]  R. Rosenthal,et al.  Assessing the statistical and social importance of the effects of psychotherapy. , 1983, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[27]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[28]  P. Green,et al.  Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook , 1978 .

[29]  Thomas C. Kinnear,et al.  Ecologically Concerned Consumers: Who are They? , 1974 .

[30]  S. Addelman Orthogonal Main-Effect Plans for Asymmetrical Factorial Experiments , 1962 .