The paired comparison technique: A subterfuge for estimating relative non-market values for the things we love

A unique combination of economic theory and the psychometric method of paired comparison was used in this study to examine how social responsibility and priming influenced research participants' valuations of non-market goods. Paired comparison is presented as an alternative to a technique commonly used by economists, known as the contingent value method (CVM). One-third of the participants (203 male, 256 female, and one non-disclosed gender university students) received a negative editorial, another third were given a neutral editorial, and the remaining third were given a positive editorial about the status of the natural environment. Participants were also given either a shared social responsibility scenario (i.e., their choice was one of many voices that would determine the group valuation outcome) or a sole social responsibility (i.e., the participant's choice alone would determine the group outcome). Participants then completed an interactive computer program where they were presented with pairs of goods randomly selected from a list of public environmental goods, private goods, and sums of money. From each pair, participants chose the good (or sum of money) they would prefer the most. Non-market goods used were a greenbelt corridor, bicycle trails, recycling, a wildlife refuge, and clean air. Private goods used were a meal, entertainment tickets, clothes, and an airline flight. Sums of money ranged from {dollar}1 to {dollar}9,000.; The primary dependent variable was the dominance score for each good, defined as the number of times it was chosen over other goods. Linear interpolation was used to derive a scale of dollar values for the goods. Results replicated the significant social responsibility scenario effect found in an earlier Peterson et al. (1994) study where public goods in the sole responsibility scenario were given higher scale values when compared to the shared responsibility scenario scale values. No significant influence from the priming editorials was found in the scales, although priming influenced questions in the attitudinal debriefing. As in previous research, women were more favorable toward environmental preservation. Results suggest that the paired comparison method is robust with respect to priming and that it offers promise as an alternative to CVM.