The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Contingent value measurement: On the nature and meaning of willingness to pay
Abstract
Treating willingness to pay (WTP) for public goods as a behavioral intention, the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985, 1987) was used to explore the meaning of contingent valuation measures. College students (N = 150) completed a questionnaire that assessed a variety of attitudinal variables with respect to (a) participating in five leisure activities and (b) paying a user fee for engaging in those activities. In addition, WTP for each activity was also assessed. Within‐subjects correlations showed that WTP could be predicted from attitudes toward paying, but of the attitudinal measures toward engaging in the activity, only perceived affect associated with the activity was predictive of WTP. In multiple regressions, the decision in principle to pay or not to pay a user fee was influenced only by the affect perceived to be associated with engaging in a leisure activity and by ethical or moral considerations related to paying a user fee. Other factors related to paying a user fee, especially perceived normative expectations (subjective norms) and available resources (perceived behavioral control), added to moral considerations in determining how much money one would be willing to pay. These findings show that in the absence of relevant knowledge or information about the economic value of public goods, judgments in principle about WTP tend to rely on cognitive heuristics, or intuitive rules of thumb, and that more substantive considerations come into play when evaluating the amount of money to be paid.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
Self-citationFrom Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior
Ajzen, I. (1985) · Action Control · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2 · Cited by 19,057
Self-citationAttitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888 · Cited by 7,611
Self-citationOn the psychology of prediction.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0034747 · Cited by 6,202
Cited by
Ajzen, I., Brown, T. C., & Carvajal, F. (2004) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167204264079 · Cited by 605
Self-citationNotani, A. S. (1998) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp0703_02 · Cited by 347
Hultman, M., Kazeminia, A., & Ghasemi, V. (2015) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.013 · Cited by 310
Modeling Influences on Impulse Purchasing Behaviors During Online Marketing Transactions
Zhang, X., Prybutok, V. R., & Strutton, D. (2007) · Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice · doi:10.2753/mtp1069-6679150106 · Cited by 183
Metadata
- Authors
- Ajzen, I., & Driver, B. L.
- Venue
- Journal of Consumer Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1992-01
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 297-316
- ISSN
- 1057-7408 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7663
- OpenAlex
- W2073072763
- Cited by
- 247
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 3.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Contingent value measurement: On the nature and meaning of willingness to pay. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1057-7408(08)80057-5
- The paper
- Ajzen, I., & Driver, B. L. (1992). Contingent value measurement: On the nature and meaning of willingness to pay. Journal of Consumer Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1057-7408(08)80057-5
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.