IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v22y2019i12p1479-1489.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Probability discounting of environmental gains: do we multiply or add up?

Author

Listed:
  • Jiaxin Chen
  • Chuqian Chen
  • Yuqing Wang
  • Guibing He

Abstract

Individuals often discount and transform risky environmental outcomes into psychological certainty equivalences (CEs) during environmental decision-making. Their preference for different alternatives is influenced by the discounting degree. Our first experiment undertook a preliminary inspection of the probability discounting of environmental gains through a matching method; whereas in Experiment 2, the discounting rule of environmental gain was compared with monetary gain by a new line-projective method, which asked participants to project their subjective value evaluation explicitly on a line of specific length. The environmental gain and its mental value-equivalent monetary gain were analogical with respect to discounting degree and process model fitting. The probability discounting of both gains was better described by an additive-utility model than the normative exponential and hyperbolic models, which means that individuals were likely to discount the risky outcome by simply adding the disutility of uncertainty to the gain’s nominal utility, rather than by multiplying the initial value by a discounting factor. It may be of great value in shedding light on the lay public evaluation of risky environmental interventions and boosting pro-environmental policy support.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiaxin Chen & Chuqian Chen & Yuqing Wang & Guibing He, 2019. "Probability discounting of environmental gains: do we multiply or add up?," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(12), pages 1479-1489, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:22:y:2019:i:12:p:1479-1489
    DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2018.1485167
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669877.2018.1485167
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669877.2018.1485167?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:22:y:2019:i:12:p:1479-1489. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.