Stated-preference tradeoffs between regulatory costs and benefits: testing unit asking and double framing effects

Branden B. Johnson and Adam M. Finkel

Journal of Risk Research, 2023, vol. 26, issue 3, 256-272

Abstract: A novel stated-preferences approach to imputing the value of life to estimate regulatory benefits elicits people’s preferred tradeoffs on behalf of the nation between national regulatory costs and nation-wide regulatory benefits, in contrast to the conventional approach of seeking estimates of the ‘value of a statistical life’ (VSL) by asking subjects how much they would be willing to pay personally for a small reduction in their own mortality risk. Two national-preference survey experiments were pursued here. The first U.S. experiment (n = 396) offered a between-person test of the effect of asking people to evaluate a hypothetical single life prolonged by regulation, before assessing the tolerable cost to the national economy of a hypothetical regulation prolonging 100 lives (LF frame). This unit asking task increased imputed means for the social benefit of a life prolonged (SB1LP*) in national tradeoffs. Cautions to respondents about responses that generated particularly low implicit SB1LP* values did not substantively reduce implausible values. The second U.S. experiment (n = 505) had people respond to both the lives-first (LF) frame, preceded by a unit asking task, and the costs-first (CF) frame (i.e. eliciting ‘reasonable’ numbers of lives prolonged if estimated regulatory cost is $1 billion each year). These frames both mimic the kinds of decisions that regulators face, as the VSL stated preference method does not. Higher LF values in earlier between-person studies were replicated in the unit asking within-person design here. A partial order effect occurred for the second experiment: starting with the CF frame yielded a subsequent LF mean four times higher. Open-ended probing found beliefs that regulatory costs are justified only by prolonging many lives may explain lower CF values. Using both frames can inform both conventional stated preference research (which uses only the LF frame) and regulators.

Date: 2023
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669877.2022.2127848 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:26:y:2023:i:3:p:256-272

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RJRR20

DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2022.2127848

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Risk Research is currently edited by Bryan MacGregor

More articles in Journal of Risk Research from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().