IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/halshs-01185772.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Estimation du poids d'un attribut environnemental : influence et effet des mesures d'évaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Eline Jongmans

    (CERAG - Centre d'études et de recherches appliquées à la gestion - UPMF - Université Pierre Mendès France - Grenoble 2 - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Alain Jolibert

    (INSEEC - INSEEC Alpes-Savoie - INSEEC - Institut des hautes études économiques et commerciales | School of Business and Economics, CERAG - Centre d'études et de recherches appliquées à la gestion - UPMF - Université Pierre Mendès France - Grenoble 2 - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Julie Irwin

    (McCombs School of Business)

Abstract

Cet article étudie l'influence des mesures d'évaluation utilisées sur le poids alloué à un attribut environnemental lors de l'évaluation d'un produit. Les résultats de deux expérimentations montrent que les consommateurs tendent à systématiquement surévaluer un attribut environnemental lorsqu'il est évalué en mesure non monétaire et/ou jointe (par rapport à une évaluation en mesure monétaire et/ou séparée). Les conclusions de cette étude remettent en question le principe d'invariance de procédure et invitent les chercheurs et praticiens à prendre en considération la nature de la mesure d'évaluation utilisée pour évaluer le poids de tels attributs par les consommateurs. Mots-clés : invariance de procédure, attribut environnemental, consentement à payer, probabilité d'achat, choix discret

Suggested Citation

  • Eline Jongmans & Alain Jolibert & Julie Irwin, 2014. "Estimation du poids d'un attribut environnemental : influence et effet des mesures d'évaluation," Post-Print halshs-01185772, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-01185772
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-01185772
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-01185772/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Louviere, Jordan J. & Islam, Towhidul, 2008. "A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(9), pages 903-911, September.
    2. Irwin, Julie R & Slovic, Paul & Lichtenstein, Sarah & McClelland, Gary H., 1993. "Preference Reversals and the Measurement of Environmental Values," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 5-18, January.
    3. Franziska Voelckner, 2006. "An empirical comparison of methods for measuring consumers’ willingness to pay," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 137-149, April.
    4. Fischhoff, Baruch & Quadrel, Marilyn Jacobs & Kamlet, Mark & Loewenstain, George & Dawes, Robyn & Fischbeck, Paul & Klepper, Steven & Leland, Jonathan & Stroh, Patrick, 1993. "Embedding Effects: Stimulus Representation and Response Mode," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 211-234, June.
    5. Garrett Sonnier & Andrew Ainslie & Thomas Otter, 2007. "Heterogeneity distributions of willingness-to-pay in choice models," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 313-331, September.
    6. Daniel Mochon, 2013. "Single-Option Aversion," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 40(3), pages 555-566.
    7. Darby, Michael R & Karni, Edi, 1973. "Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 67-88, April.
    8. Bazerman, Max H. & Moore, Don A. & Tenbrunsel, Ann E. & Wade-Benzoni, Kimberly A. & Blount, Sally, 1999. "Explaining how preferences change across joint versus separate evaluation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 41-58, May.
    9. Marine Le Gall-Ely & Philippe Robert-Demontrond, 2005. "Méthodes d'évaluation contingente et d'analyse conjointe," Post-Print halshs-00081835, HAL.
    10. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Willingness to pay for eco-labelled wood furniture: Choice-based conjoint analysis versus open-ended contingent valuation," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 29-48, May.
    11. Greg Allenby & Geraldine Fennell & Joel Huber & Thomas Eagle & Tim Gilbride & Dan Horsky & Jaehwan Kim & Peter Lenk & Rich Johnson & Elie Ofek & Bryan Orme & Thomas Otter & Joan Walker, 2005. "Adjusting Choice Models to Better Predict Market Behavior," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 197-208, December.
    12. Irwin, Julie R. & Baron, Jonathan, 2001. "Response Mode Effects and Moral Values," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 177-197, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eline Jongmans & Alain Jolibert & Julie Irwin, 2014. "Toujours plus, toujours mieux ? Effet contre-intuitif de l'évaluation des attributs environnementaux du produit par le consommateur," Post-Print halshs-01185784, HAL.
    2. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.
    3. Ericka Costa & Dario Montemurro & Diego Giuliani, 2019. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for green cars: a discrete choice analysis in Italy," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(5), pages 2425-2442, October.
    4. Logg, Jennifer M. & Minson, Julia A. & Moore, Don A., 2019. "Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 90-103.
    5. John A. List, 2002. "Preference Reversals of a Different Kind: The "More Is Less" Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1636-1643, December.
    6. Amos Schurr & Ilana Ritov & Yaakov Kareev & Judith Avrahami, 2012. "The Effect of Perspective on Unethical Behavior," Discussion Paper Series dp620, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    7. Stefanie Heinzle, 2012. "Disclosure of Energy Operating Cost Information: A Silver Bullet for Overcoming the Energy-Efficiency Gap?," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 43-64, March.
    8. Braun, Alexander & Schmeiser, Hato & Schreiber, Florian, 2016. "On consumer preferences and the willingness to pay for term life insurance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(3), pages 761-776.
    9. Stich, Lucas & Spann, Martin & Schmidt, Klaus M., 2022. "Paying for open access," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 273-286.
    10. Ke-Wei Huang, 2009. "Optimal criteria for selecting price discrimination metrics when buyers have log-normally distributed willingness-to-pay," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 321-341, September.
    11. Jonathan E. Alevy & John A. List & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2011. "How Can Behavioral Economics Inform Nonmarket Valuation? An Example from the Preference Reversal Literature," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(3), pages 365-381.
    12. Suk, Kwanho & Yoon, Song-Oh, 2012. "The moderating role of decision task goals in attribute weight convergence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 37-45.
    13. Kogut, Tehila & Ritov, Ilana, 2005. "The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint evaluations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 106-116, July.
    14. Müller, Holger & Kroll, Eike B. & Vogt, Bodo, 2012. "Violations of procedure invariance—The case of preference reversals in monadic and competitive product evaluations," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 406-412.
    15. Stachtiaris, Spiros & Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Klonaris, Stathis, 2011. "The "more is less" phenomenon in Contingent and Inferred valuation," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 116013, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Holger Müller & Eike Benjamin Kroll & Bodo Vogt, 2010. "When Judgments and Preferences Fail to Conform: Research on Preference Reversals for Product Purchases," FEMM Working Papers 100003, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    17. Gould, Stephen J. & Kramer, Thomas, 2009. ""What's it Worth to Me?" Three interpretive studies of the relative roles of task-oriented and reflexive processes in separate versus joint value construction," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 840-858, December.
    18. Milkman, Katherine L., 2012. "Unsure what the future will bring? You may overindulge: Uncertainty increases the appeal of wants over shoulds," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 163-176.
    19. J. K. Pappalardo, 2022. "Economics of Consumer Protection: Contributions and Challenges in Estimating Consumer Injury and Evaluating Consumer Protection Policy," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 201-238, June.
    20. Feser, Daniel & Runst, Petrik, 2015. "Energy efficiency consultants as change agents? Examining the reasons for EECs’ limited success," ifh Working Papers 1 (2015), Volkswirtschaftliches Institut für Mittelstand und Handwerk an der Universität Göttingen (ifh).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Estimation du poids d'un attribut environnemental; influence et effet des mesures d'évaluation;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hal:journl:halshs-01185772. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.