Willingness to pay for reduction in fatality risk: an exploratory survey

Abstract

Willingness to pay surveys represent one method for measuring the benefit of health and life saving programs. However, the reliability and validity of survey responses to questions concerning the reduction of fatality or injury risks have been questioned. The results of a survey of 77 senior year undergraduate students show that reasonable appearing and consistent responses to willingness to pay questions on car crash protection can be obtained. However, the implied value of life was over 100 times greater for an unidentified life than for the respondent's own life. Also, no relationship was found between willingness to pay responses and variables reflecting respondent's rational considerations. These paradoxical results seem to be due to the mistaken assumptions that people employ rational considerations when responding to willingness to pay questions and that they are capable of matching their responses with the functional relationship (proportionality) underlying implied value of life calculations.