Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Valuing Mortality-Risk Reduction: Using Visual Aids to Improve the Validity of Contingent Valuation

  • Published:
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We investigate the validity of contingent valuation (CV) estimates of the value per statistical life (VSL). We test for sensitivity of estimated willingness to pay (WTP) to the magnitude of mortality-risk reduction and for the theoretically predicted proportionality of WTP to risk reduction using alternative visual aids to communicate risk. We find that WTP is sensitive to the magnitude of risk reduction for independent subsamples of respondents presented with each of three alternative visual aids, but not for the subsample presented with no visual aid. Estimated WTP is consistent with proportionality to risk reduction for the subsamples presented with a logarithmic scale or an array of 25,000 dots, but not for the subsample receiving a linear scale. These results suggest that CV can provide valid estimates of WTP for mortality-risk reduction if appropriate methods are used to communicate the risk change to respondents.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alberini, A. (1995). “Efficiency vs Bias of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates: Bivariate and Interval-Data Models,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29, 169–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alberini, A., B. Kanninen, and R. T. Carson. (1997). “Modeling Response Incentive Effects in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Data,” Land Economics 73, 309–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, J. (1997a). “Biases in Quantitative Measurement of Values for Public Decisions,” Psychological Bulletin 122, 72–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, J. (1997b). “Confusion of Relative and Absolute Risk in Valuation,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 14, 301–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beattie, J., J. Covey, P. Dolan, L. Hopkins, M. Jones-Lee, G. Loomes, N. Pidgeon, A. Robinson, and A. Spencer. (1998). “On the Contingent Valuation of Safety and the Safety of Contingent Valuation: Part 1—Caveat Investigator,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 17, 5–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calman, K. C. and G. H. D. Royston. (1997). “Risk Language and Dialects,” British Medical Journal 315, 939–942.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, T. A. and J. Quiggin. (1994), “Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a ‘Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up’ Questionnaire,” Journal of Environmenta1 Economics and Management 27, 219–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desvousges, W. H., R. F. Johnson, and R. W. Dunford, (1993). “Measuring Natural Resource Damages with Contingent Valuation: Tests of Validity and Reliability.” In J. A. Hausman (ed.), Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment, pp. 91–164, North-Holland, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, P. A. and J. A. Hausman. (1994). “Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better Than No Number?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(4), 45–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eom, Y. S. (1994). “Pesticide Residue Risk and Food Safety Valuation: A Random Utility Approach,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76, 760–771.

    Google Scholar 

  • Featherstonhaugh, D., P. Slovic, S. M. Johnson, and J. Friedrich. (1997). “Insensitivity to the Value of Human Life: A Study of Psychological Numbing,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 14, 283–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B. and L. Furby. (1988). “Measuring Values: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Transactions with Special Reference to Contingent Valuation of Visibility,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1, 147–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, A., L. G. Chestnut, and D. M. Violette. (1989a). “The Value of Reducing Risks of Death: A Note on New Evidence,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 8, 88–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, A., G. H. McClelland, and W. D. Schulze. (1989b). “Communicating Risk Under Title III of SARA: Strategies for Explaining Very Small Risks in a Community Context,” Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association 39, 271–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, S. and B. Fischhoff. (1998). “Scope (In)Sensitivity in Elicited Valuations,” Risk Decision and Policy 3, 109–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G. (1995). “How to Improve Bayesian Reasoning without Instruction: Frequency Formats,” Psychological Review 102, 684–704.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G. (1996). “The Psychology of Good Judgement: Frequency Formats and Simple Algorithms,” Medical Decision Making 16, 273–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez, U. A. L. (1990). “Communicating Very Low Probability Events,” unpublished dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University.

  • Hammitt, J. K. (1986). Estimating Consumer Willingness to Pay to Reduce Food-Borne Risk, R-3447-EPA, Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammitt, J. K. (1990). “Risk Perceptions and Food Choice: An Exploratory Analysis of Organic-Versus Conventional-Produce Buyers,” Risk Analysis 10, 367–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammitt, J. K. (2000a). “Evaluating Contingent Valuation of Environmental Health Risks: The Proportionality Test,” Association of Environmental and Resource Economists Newsletter, May.

  • Hammitt, J. K. (2000b). “Valuing Mortality Risk: Theory and Practice,” Environmental Science and Technology 34, 1396–1400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammitt, J. K. and J. D. Graham. (1999). “Willingness to Pay for Health Protection: Inadequate Sensitivity to Probability?” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 18, 33–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann, M., J. Loomis, and B. Kanninen. (1991). “Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73, 1255–1261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsee, C. K. (1996). “The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 67, 247–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johannesson, M., B. Jonsson, and L. Borgquist. (1991). “Willingness to Pay for Antihypertensive Therapy— Results of a Swedish Pilot Study.” Journal of Health Economics 10, 461–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johannesson, M., P.-O. Johansson, B. Kristom, and U.-G. Gerdtham. (1993). “Willingness to Pay for Antihypertensive Therapy—Further Results,” Journal of Health Economics 12, 95–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones-Lee, M. W. (1974). “The Value of Changes in the Probability of Death or Injury,” Journal of Political Economy 82, 835–849.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones-Lee, M. W., M. Hammerton, and P. R. Philips. (1985). “The Value of Safety: Results of a National Survey,” Economic Journal 95, 49–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones-Lee, M. W., G. Loomes, and P. R. Philips. (1995). “Valuing the Prevention of Non-fatal Road Injuries: Contingent Valuation vs. Standard Gambles,” Oxford Economic Papers 47, 676–695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky. (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk,” Econometrica 47, 263–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., I. Ritov, and D. Schkade. (1999). “Economic Preferences or Attitude Expression?: An Analysis of Dollar Responses to Public Issues,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19, 203–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanninen, B. J. (1995). “Bias in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28, 114–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. M., B. Hammel, and L. E. Schimmel. (1985). “Patient Information Processing and the Decision to Accept Treatment,” Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 1, 113–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kartman, B., F. Andersson, and M. Johannesson. (1996). “Willingness to Pay for Reductions in Angina Pectoris Attacks,” Medical Decision Making 16, 248–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kidholm, K. (1995). “Assessing the Value of Traffic Safety Using the Contingent Valuation Technique: The Danish Survey,” In C. N. Schwab and N. Soguel (eds.), Contingent Valuation, Transport Safety, and the Value of Life, pp. 45–61, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunreuther, H., R. Ginsberg, L. Miller, P. Sagi, P. Slovic, B. Borkan, and N. Katz. (1978). Disaster Insurance Protection: Public Policy Lessons. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, C.-Z. and L. Mattson. (1995). “Discrete Choice under Preference Uncertainty: An improved Structural Model for Contingent Valuation,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28, 256–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C.-T. J. and J. W. Milon. (1995). “Contingent Valuation of Health Risk Reductions for Shellfish Products,” In J. A. Caswell (ed.), Valuing Food Safety and Nutrition, pp. 83–114. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

  • Liu, J.-T., J. K. Hammitt, and J.-L., Liu. (1997). “Estimated Hedonic Wage Function and Value of Life in a Developing Country,” Economic Letters 57, 353–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomis, J. B. and P. H. duVair. (1993). “Evaluating the Effect of Alternative Risk Communication Devices on Willingness to Pay: Results from a Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Experiment.” Land Economics 69, 287–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machina, M. J. (1987). “Choice under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 1, 121–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. C. and R. T. Carson. (1986). “Valuing Drinking Water Risk Reductions Using the Contingent Valuation Method: A Methodological Study of Risks from THM and Giardia.” Draft Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

  • Mitchell, R. C. and R. T. Carson. (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moschandreas, D. J. and P. E. Chang. (1994). “On the Use of a Risk Ladder: Linking Public Perception of Risks Associated with Indoor Air with Cognitive Elements and Attitudes Toward Risk Reduction,” Atmospheric Environment 28, 3093–3098.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller, A. and T. J. Reutzel. (1984). “Willingness to Pay for Reduction in Fatality Risk: An Exploratory Survey,” American Journal of Public Health 74, 808–812.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (1994), “Natural Resource Damage Assessments: Proposed Rules,” Federal Register 59, 1062–1191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, J. W. and R. J. Zeckhauser. (1996). “Willingness to Pay and the Distribution of Risk and Wealth,” Journal of Political Economy 104, 747–763.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quiggin, J. (1982). “A Theory of Anticipated Utility,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3, 323–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ready, R. C., J. C. Whitehead, and G. C. Blomquist. (1995). “Contingent Valuation when Respondents are Ambivalent,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29, 181–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandman, P. M., N. D. Weinstein, and P. Miller. (1994). “High Risk or Low: How Location on a ‘Risk Ladder’ Affects Perceived Risk,” Risk Analysis 14, 35–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V. K. and W. H. Desvousges. (1987). “An Empirical Analysis of the Economic Value of Risk Changes,” Journal of Political Economy 95, 89–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman. (1992). “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 297–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viscusi, W. K. (1985). “A Bayesian Perspective on Biases in Risk Perception,” Economic Letters 17, 59–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viscusi, W. K., W. Magat, and J. Huber. (1987). “An Investigation of the Rationality of Consumer Valuations of Multiple Health Risk,” RAND Journal of Economics 18, 465–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viscusi, W. K. (1989). “Prospective Reference Theory: Toward an Explanation of the Paradoxes,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2, 235–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viscusi, W. K. (1993). “The Value of Risks to Life and Health.” Journal of Economic Literature 31, 1912–1946.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viscusi, W. K. (1998). Rational Risk Policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, M. C., D. S. Shepard, and J. S. Pliskin. (1980). “The Economic Value of Changing Mortality Probabilities: A Decision-Theoretic Approach,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 94, 373–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, N. D., P. M. Sandman, and W. K. Hallman. (1994). “Testing a Visual Display to Explain Small Probabilities,” Risk Analysis 14, 895–108.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Epidemiology Program Office, Atlanta, GA, 30341

    Phaedra S. Corso

  2. Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, 02115

    James K. Hammitt & John D. Graham

Authors
  1. Phaedra S. Corso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James K. Hammitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John D. Graham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Corso, P.S., Hammitt, J.K. & Graham, J.D. Valuing Mortality-Risk Reduction: Using Visual Aids to Improve the Validity of Contingent Valuation. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 23, 165–184 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011184119153

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011184119153

Search

Navigation