Baron J, Leshner S
Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 19104-6196, USA.
J Exp Psychol Appl. 2000 Sep;6(3):183-94. doi: 10.1037//1076-898x.6.3.183.
People think that some things that they value should be protected from trade-offs with other things. For example, people think that no economic gain is great enough to justify clear-cutting old-growth forest. The authors probed the stability of these protected values (PVs) in several ways. Subjects were asked to think of counterexamples, and this had some effect on PVs. Subjects were then asked how they would resolve conflicts between 2 PVs. Resolutions did not differ from those between other values, but subjects tended to feel that conflicts between PVs did not occur in reality. Despite people's claims that PVs are unchanged by variation in quantity, expression of PVs was reduced when the magnitude or probability of the violation of a PV was smaller. In summary, PVs appear to be labile and amenable to challenge. Despite earlier concerns, apparent PVs may not always preclude the use of valuation measures in cost-effectiveness analysis or negotiated agreement on controversial issues.
人们认为他们所珍视的某些事物应免受与其他事物的权衡取舍。例如,人们认为没有任何经济收益足以证明砍伐原始森林是合理的。作者通过多种方式探究了这些受保护价值(PVs)的稳定性。研究对象被要求思考反例,这对受保护价值产生了一定影响。然后,研究对象被问及他们将如何解决两种受保护价值之间的冲突。其解决方案与其他价值之间的冲突并无差异,但研究对象往往觉得受保护价值之间的冲突在现实中不会发生。尽管人们声称受保护价值不会因数量变化而改变,但当违反受保护价值的程度或可能性较小时,受保护价值的表达会降低。总之,受保护价值似乎是不稳定的,易于受到挑战。尽管早期存在担忧,但明显的受保护价值可能并不总是排除在成本效益分析中使用估值措施或就有争议的问题达成协商一致。