The value of familiarity: Effects of knowledge and objective signals on willingness to pay for a public good

We design and conduct a field experiment in which treated subjects receive a precise and objective signal regarding their knowledge about a public good before estimating their WTP for it. We find that the causal effect of objective signals about the accuracy of a subject׳s knowledge for a public good can dramatically affect their valuation for it: treatment caused a significant increase of $85–$129 in WTP for well-informed individuals. We find no such effect for less informed subjects. Our results imply that WTP estimates for public goods are not only a function of true information states of the respondents but beliefs about those information states.

[1]  J. Swait,et al.  The Influence of Task Complexity on Consumer Choice: A Latent Class Model of Decision Strategy Switching , 2001 .

[2]  D. McFadden.  Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[3]  A. Daly,et al.  Handbook of Choice Modelling , 2014 .

[4]  Nick Hanley,et al.  Controlling for the Effects of Information in a Public Goods Discrete Choice Model , 2014, Environmental and Resource Economics.

[5]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Overconfidence and Excess Entry: An Experimental Approach , 1999 .

[6]  Joffre Swait,et al.  Choice Environment, Market Complexity, and Consumer Behavior: A Theoretical and Empirical Approach for Incorporating Decision Complexity into Models of Consumer Choice , 2001 .

[7]  Justin M. Rao,et al.  The Good News-Bad News Effect: Asymmetric Processing of Objective Information about Yourself , 2011 .

[8]  P. Nelson.  Information and Consumer Behavior , 1970, Journal of Political Economy.

[9]  Richard Cookson,et al.  Framing Effects in Public Goods Experiments , 2000 .

[10]  K. Boyle,et al.  Dynamic Learning and Context-Dependence in Sequential, Attribute-Based, Stated-Preference Valuation Questions , 2005, Land Economics.

[11]  Saurabh Bhargava,et al.  Why Are Benefits Left on the Table? Assessing the Role of Information, Complexity, and Stigma on Take-Up With an Irs Field Experiment , 2012 .

[12]  E. Duflo,et al.  The Role of Information and Social Interactions in Retirement Plan Decisions: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment , 2002 .

[13]  N. Hanley,et al.  The Effects of Experience on Preference Uncertainty: Theory and Empirics for Public and Quasi-Public Environmental Goods , 2013 .

[14]  Thomas C. Brown,et al.  Reliability of individual valuations of public and private goods: Choice consistency, response time, and preference refinement , 2008 .

[15]  Christian A. Vossler,et al.  Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments , 2010 .

[16]  Joel L. Schrag,et al.  First Impressions Matter: A Model of Confirmatory Bias , 1999 .

[17]  D. Blackwell.  Comparison of Experiments , 1951 .

[18]  Daniel A. Ackerberg.  Advertising, Learning, and Consumer Choice in Experience Good Markets: An Empirical Examination , 2003 .

[19]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  The role of question order and respondent experience in contingent-valuation studies. , 1993 .

[20]  David C. Kingsley,et al.  Preference Uncertainty, Preference Learning, and Paired Comparison Experiments , 2010, Land Economics.

[21]  R. Jensen.  The Digital Provide: Information (Technology), Market Performance, and Welfare in the South Indian Fisheries Sector , 2007 .

[22]  Katrina Jessoe,et al.  Knowledge is (Less) Power: Experimental Evidence from Residential Energy Use , 2012 .

[23]  Luis C. Corchón,et al.  Addiction and Cue-Triggered Decision Processes. , 2004, The American economic review.

[24]  Peter E. Latham,et al.  Does interaction matter? Testing whether a confidence heuristic can replace interaction in collective decision-making , 2014, Consciousness and Cognition.

[25]  Jacob LaRiviere,et al.  The Effects of Experience on Preferences: Theory and Empirics for Environmental Public Goods , 2015 .

[26]  Andrew Schotter,et al.  Decision Making with Naive Advice , 2003 .

[27]  Jeffrey Englin,et al.  Respondent Experience and Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods , 1997 .

[28]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation , 2014 .

[29]  Glenn C. Blomquist,et al.  Contingent Valuation When Respondents Are Ambivalent , 1995 .

[30]  D. Moore,et al.  When Overconfidence Is Revealed to Others: Testing the Status-Enhancement Theory of Overconfidence , 2013 .

[31]  K. Boyle,et al.  Dynamic Learning And Context-Dependence In Sequential, Attribute-Based Contingent Valuation , 2004 .

[32]  Henry L Roediger,et al.  Positive and Negative Correlations Between Confidence and Accuracy for the Same Events in Recognition of Categorized Lists , 2014, Psychological science.

[33]  M. Keane,et al.  Decision-Making Under Uncertainty: Capturing Dynamic Brand Choice Processes in Turbulent Consumer Goods Markets , 1996 .

[34]  Andrew P. Yonelinas,et al.  Neural Correlates of State- and Strength-based Perception , 2014, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[35]  David Owens,et al.  An Unlucky Feeling: Overconfidence and Noisy Feedback , 2010 .

[36]  P. B. Mortensen,et al.  The deep-water coral Lophelia pertusa in Norwegian waters: distribution and fishery impacts , 2002, Hydrobiologia.

[37]  Matthew G. Rhodes,et al.  Prior knowledge is more predictive of error correction than subjective confidence , 2014, Memory & cognition.

[38]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  The Effect of Attribute Variation on Consumer Choice Consistency , 1999 .