This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Effective Altruism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relevant to effective altruism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Effective AltruismWikipedia:WikiProject Effective AltruismTemplate:WikiProject Effective AltruismEffective Altruism articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Subjects were told that either 2,000, or 20,000, or 200,000 migrating birds were affected annually, for which subjects reported they were willing to pay $80, $78 and $88 respectively.[2]
I don't get at all why this is considered surprising. All this says is that people consider $80/year an amount they could relatively easily live without, of course it doesn't go up to $800 if you increase the effect by 10 because then it would be a significant fraction of the person's income. Could this be explained better? What would be the "rational" result that makes the one actually seen noteworthy or an example of cognitive bias? --46.223.162.165 (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
