Julie Irwin1
McCombs School of Business
University of Texas
The government is considering a plan to permit logging of old-growth trees on one portion of a National Park in order to harvest microscopic organisms that grow in their roots, because these organisms might lead to new pharmaceutical products that would help to fight MS (multiple sclerosis).The second paragraph followed the first 11 of the acceptability/reasons scales and described in more detail how the decision would benefit the participant (unless this was specified in the first paragraph) and also asked for an evaluation of the scenario in terms of a willingness-to-accept (WTA) question. For the old-growth trees question, this second paragraph was:
The plan will require that the logging company pay the Park Service for the timber it logs. If new drugs are successfully developed using the root organisms, then additional payments will be made to the Park Service by the pharmaceutical firms. These payments would lower your taxes. In addition, successful treatment of MS would lower your medical insurance costs. What is the SMALLEST savings in taxes and insurance costs each year that you would require to approve of this plan?Table 1 shows a summary of these 22 stimuli. (The scenario shown here is called MSLog.) The Appendix provides the full two-paragraph stimuli, starting with a brief label and ending with a code indicating in which packet, and in which order, the scenario appeared and a dollar amount, which will be explained later. (The label, code, and dollar amount were not presented to the participants.)
BanDrugs | Pharmaceutical company proposes to increase its profits by selling less-developed nations drugs that are banned in all industrialized countries. |
CarCost | Automobile company decides not to recall 1999-model cars because costs of repairs are predicted to be high in relation to number of lives saved. |
CarSuits | Automobile company decides not to recall 1999-model cars because costs of predicted lawsuits due to injuries and deaths are lower than recall costs. |
CloneCell | Genetics company plans to clone human cells to aid serious burn patients. |
*NCloneCell | Genetics company plans to grow artificial skin in Petri dish to aid serious burn patients. |
Coma | Local hospital plans to harvest organs for transplants from patients in deep coma. |
Dolphins | Commercial fishers propose technique to create employment and reduce fish prices but would increase dolphin deaths by about 35%. |
DrugTest | Hospital decides not to halt a study of a new cancer drug and to continue giving half its patients a placebo although early results show the new drug saves lives. |
*NDrugTest | Hospital proposes giving half its patients a promising new cancer drug and the other half a different promising cancer drug. |
GenMod | World-wide conglomerate to sell genetically modified wheat with added vitamins to African countries. |
GenRsch | Food conglomerate makes proposal to National Science Foundation to do research on genetic modification of wheat, leading to more drought-resistant strains. |
Highway | State Dept. of Transportation decides not to improve dangerous highway for cost reasons. |
*NHighway | State Dept. of Transportation decides not to improve dangerous highway because there have been no serious accidents. |
LifeIns | Insurance company sets different life insurance rates for whites and blacks. |
*NLifeIns | Insurance company sets different life insurance rates for smokers and non-smokers. |
Military | Congress considers plan to allow military personnel or their families to buy their way out of foreign military service. |
MSLog | Government considers logging old-growth forest to harvest microscopic organisms that might help lead to new drugs for treating MS (multiple sclerosis). |
Pollute | Local utility company seeks permission to save ratepayers money but would increase pollution and deaths from childhood asthma. |
Puppies | State legislature considers whether unwanted puppies and kittens should be sold to experimental labs. |
RadioNuc | Congress proposes law to permit higher rates of radionuclide emissions from coal-fired power plants to lower electricity costs and reduce brownouts. |
TreeTrade | Timber company proposes giving up large second-growth forested area near urban center in return for rights to harvest remote tract of virgin forest. |
UnivMonk | University plans to breed monkeys for use in HIV/AIDS research despite lack of appropriate laboratory space. |
Agree Disagree | ||
1. | I agree with this proposal (circle one number) | 1 2 3 4 5 |
2. | I would not approve of this proposal no matter how high the benefits | 1 2 3 4 5 |
· | · | · |
· | · | · |
· | · | · |
11. | All in all, my feelings about this proposal are: | |
Highly Negative Undecided Highly Positive | ||
1 2 3 4 5 | ||
If you circled "1," "2," or "3," continue to fill out the rest of this page before going on to the next page. | If you circled "4" or "5," go directly to the next page. | |
12. | What is the SMALLEST reduction in your yearly cost for electricity that you would require to approve of this proposal to reduce expenditures on pollution controls? My saving would have to be at least $_________ per year to approve of this proposal. | |
13. | I don't think it's right to put a dollar value on something like this. | 1 2 3 4 5 |
14. | You couldn't pay me enough to approve of this proposal. | 1 2 3 4 5 |
Set I: | |
3/10 | Complex: I think this proposal is complex, with many aspects to consider, so it's hard to evaluate. |
4/9 | Phony: Asking me to approve or reject this proposal is a phony choice; there is a better way to deal with this situation. |
5/6 | Not Me: I don't feel competent to judge this proposal; somebody else should. |
6/8 | Future: I worry that there will be bad consequences from this proposal in the future (1, 5, or 50 years from now). |
7/7 | Not Trust: I don't trust the managers of this situation. |
8/4 | Moral: The proposal is morally or ethically wrong. |
9/5 | Norms: This proposal violates the norms of our society/culture. |
10/3 | Disgust: This proposal disgusts or repulses me. |
Set II: | |
3/10 | Conflict: It is hard to evaluate this proposal because its good and bad elements are in conflict. |
4/9 | Not Enuf Info: You haven't given me enough information to make a careful evaluation of this proposal. |
6/8 | Slippery: This is a slippery slope. Accepting this now will encourage new, worse proposals in the future. We've got to draw the line here. |
7/7 | Send Message: An important reason for reversing this proposal is to send a message to the people who proposed it. |
5/6 | Not Party To: It might be okay for this to happen elsewhere but I don't want to be a party to it by agreeing it. |
9/5 | Uncomfort: It makes me uncomfortable to think about this topic. |
8/4 | Religious: I have religious objections to this proposal. |
10/3 | Anger: This proposal makes me angry. |
In this task we are asking you for your opinions about eleven different plans, decisions, or proposals, each typed at the top of a page. There are no right or wrong answers; we are interested in your opinions. Please take your time, reading carefully and giving us your thoughtful opinions. Some of these plans may seem somewhat yucky. Please don't let your feeling for one of them affect your feelings for the next one. "Wipe the slate clean" as you turn each page.
Neutral Scenarios | Non-neutral scenarios | |||||||
(r)2-5(l)6-9 | Totals | Subtotals | Totals | Subtotals | ||||
(r)2-3(r)4-5(lr)6-7 | f | % | f | % | f | % | f | % |
Item #11 3 | 332 | 67 | 513 | 23 | ||||
Blank | 38 | 8 | 584 | 26 | ||||
Blank protest | 24* | 5 | 510* | 23 | ||||
Blank non-protest | 14 | 3 | 74 | 3 | ||||
Zero | 18* | 4 | 169* | 8 | ||||
Positive WTA | 108 | 22 | 966 | 43 | ||||
WTA w/in range | 92 | 19 | 621 | 28 | ||||
WTA too high | 16* | 3 | 345* | 15 | ||||
Total | 496 | 2232 | ||||||
* Protest = 2 | 58 | 12 | 1024 | 46 | ||||
0 if the response to item #11 was positive (4 or 5). 1 if the WTA was greater than zero and equal to or smaller than the upper limit shown in the Appendix, or if WTA was blank and both items #13 and #14 were 3 or less. 2 if WTA was greater than the upper limit shown in the Appendix, or if WTA was equal to zero , or if WTA was blank and either #13 or #14 was greater than 3.Table 4 shows the frequencies and percents for all responses to the WTA item, for neutral and non-neutral scenarios separately. Our primary dependent measure: Disapproval. With the five acceptability scales (#1, #2, #11, #13, and #14) and the Protest measure from WTA, we had six measures of the overall acceptability (or approval) of each scenario. These six measures were highly intercorrelated. Using the mean across participants for each scenario, the absolute values of the intercorrelations across scenarios for the six measures ranged from .86 to .99, with a median of .95. With such high correlations, it seemed appropriate to combine these measures into one Disapproval measure, the simple sum of the other six measures, added or subtracted as appropriate:
|
Scenario | Disapproval | Scenario | Disapproval |
CarCost | 18.51 | UnivMonk | 14.46 |
LifeIns | 18.41 | TreeTrade | 13.18 |
Pollute | 18.21 | MSLog | 11.20 |
BanDrugs | 17.99 | DrugTest | 10.82 |
Military | 17.94 | GenRsch | 9.26 |
CarSuits | 17.76 | GenMod | 8.73 |
Dolphins | 17.18 | NDrugTest | 8.17 |
Puppies | 15.98 | CloneCell | 5.66 |
RadioNuc | 15.68 | NLifeIns | 4.44 |
Coma | 15.06 | NHighway | 4.30 |
Highway | 14.52 | NCloneCell | 3.85 |
Mean | 12.80 | ||
Experiment 1 | Experiment 2 | |||||
(r)2-4(lr)5-7 | Mini-disapproval | Rated WTA | ||||
(r)3-4(r)6-7 $WTA | n | Mean | Median | n | Mean | Median |
$1,000 | 126 | -1.12 | -2 | 163 | 4.63 | 4 |
$1,001-4,999 | 98 | -0.84 | -1 | 115 | 4.50 | 4 |
$5,000-9,999 | 99 | -0.11 | 0 | 94 | 3.78 | 3 |
5 digits | 135 | 1.10 | 2 | 84 | 3.56 | 3 |
6 digits | 40 | 1.03 | 2 | 11 | 3.27 | 2 |
7 digits | 30 | 1.43 | 2 | 23 | 1.65 | 1 |
8 or more digits | 37 | 1.68 | 3 | 15 | 1.40 | 1 |
Totals | 565 | (53% of positive $WTA) | 505 | (37% of positive $WTA) | ||
A 1-10 scale was used for Rated WTA, with 1 = Never and 10 = Definitely willing to accept. |
|
Significant unstandardized regression coefficients | ||||
(r)2-4 Reason Set | Affective Factor | Cognitive Factor | Interaction | R |
I | 5.27**** | -1.45**** | -1.42** | 0.62 |
II | 3.96**** | -1.56** | -2.23**** | 0.45 |
**p.01, ****p.0001 |
How complex was the highway [animal, terrorism] scenario? To what extent did the highway [animal, terrorism] scenario involve morality? How difficult was the highway [animal, terrorism] scenario to understand? How disgusting was the highway [animal, terrorism] scenario? How phony was the highway [animal, terrorism] scenario? How angry did the highway [animal, terrorism] scenario make you?
Totals | Subtotals | |||
f | % | f | % | |
Blank | 413* | 23 | ||
Zero | 40 | 2 | ||
Positive WTA | 1383 | 75 | ||
WTA w/in range | 1079 | 59 | ||
WTA too high | 304* | 16 | ||
Total | 1836 | |||
* Protest = 1 | 717 | 39 | ||
Highway | Animal | Terrorism | |
Memory load | $396 | $210 | $448 |
No memory load | $647 | $365 | $705 |
p .05 | p .05 | p .09 | |
Highway | Animal | Terrorism | |||||||
(r)2-4(r)5-7(r)8-10 | Rated WTA | $WTA | Protest | Rated WTA | $WTA | Protest | Rated WTA | $WTA | Protest |
Affect | -.66 | .43 | .08 | -.95 | .58 | .08 | -.83 | .44 | .09 |
Cognition | .23 | -.02 | .29 | -.26 | -.07 | ||||
A x C | .09 | -.07 | -.01 | .14 | -.02 | -.09 | -.01 | ||
R | .30 | .12 | .14 | .49 | .21 | .17 | .39 | .15 | .23 |