Preference learning versus coherent arbitrariness: NOAA guidelines or a Learning Design Contingent Valuation (LDCV)

Ian J. Bateman, Diane Burgess, W. George Hutchinson, David I. Matthews

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We extend the contingent valuation (CV) method to test three differing conceptions of individuals' preferences as either: (i) a-priori well-formed or readily divined and revealed through a single dichotomous choice question (as per the NOAA CV guidelines; Arrow et al., 1993]; (ii) learned or 'discovered' through a process of repetition and experience [Plott, 1996; List, 2003]; (iii) internally coherent but strongly influenced by some initial arbitrary anchor [Ariely et al., 2003]. Findings reject both the first and last of these conceptions in favour of a model in which preferences converge towards standard expectations through a process of repetition and learning.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-25
Number of pages25
JournalWorking Paper - Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 01 Dec 2006

Keywords

  • Coherent arbitrariness
  • Contingent valuation
  • Discovered preferences
  • Learning
  • Preference formation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Geography, Planning and Development
  • Earth and Planetary Sciences(all)
  • Global and Planetary Change
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
  • Aerospace Engineering

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Preference learning versus coherent arbitrariness: NOAA guidelines or a Learning Design Contingent Valuation (LDCV)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this