IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/theord/v86y2019i3d10.1007_s11238-019-09691-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Strategic framing to influence clients’ risky decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Kris De Jaegher

    (Utrecht University)

Abstract

This paper develops a model of persuasive demand inducement in the expert–client relationship. The expert frames the decision on whether or not to buy expert services faced by a client with prospect-theoretic preferences, by making the client see this decision from the perspective of a particular reference point. When inducing a client to buy risky curative services, the expert should set a high reference point, and frame all outcomes as losses. When instead inducing a client to buy safe preventive services, as long as the client’s loss aversion is sufficiently high, the expert should set an intermediate reference point, framing high outcomes as gains and low outcomes as losses.

Suggested Citation

  • Kris De Jaegher, 2019. "Strategic framing to influence clients’ risky decisions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 437-462, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:86:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s11238-019-09691-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11238-019-09691-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11238-019-09691-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11238-019-09691-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Beck, Adrian & Kerschbamer, Rudolf & Qiu, Jianying & Sutter, Matthias, 2013. "Shaping beliefs in experimental markets for expert services: Guilt aversion and the impact of promises and money-burning options," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 145-164.
    2. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Peter P. Wakker & Rakesh Sarin, 1997. "Back to Bentham? Explorations of Experienced Utility," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 375-406.
    4. Paul Calcott, 1999. "Demand inducement as cheap talk," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(8), pages 721-733, December.
    5. van der Pol, Marjon & Ruggeri, Matteo, 2008. "Is risk attitude outcome specific within the health domain?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 706-717, May.
    6. Stuart Peacock & Jeffrey Richardson, 2007. "Supplier-induced demand: re-examining identification and misspecification in cross-sectional analysis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 8(3), pages 267-277, September.
    7. Darby, Michael R & Karni, Edi, 1973. "Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 67-88, April.
    8. Adam Booij & Bernard Praag & Gijs Kuilen, 2010. "A parametric analysis of prospect theory’s functionals for the general population," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 115-148, February.
    9. Stephanie Rosenkranz & Patrick W. Schmitz, 2007. "Reserve Prices in Auctions as Reference Points," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(520), pages 637-653, April.
    10. Emir Kamenica & Matthew Gentzkow, 2011. "Bayesian Persuasion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(6), pages 2590-2615, October.
    11. Rudolf Kerschbamer & Matthias Sutter & Uwe Dulleck, 2017. "How Social Preferences Shape Incentives in (Experimental) Markets for Credence Goods," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(600), pages 393-416, March.
    12. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    13. Olivier Armantier & Amadou Boly, 2015. "Framing Of Incentives And Effort Provision," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 56, pages 917-938, August.
    14. Tanjim Hossain & John A. List, 2012. "The Behavioralist Visits the Factory: Increasing Productivity Using Simple Framing Manipulations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(12), pages 2151-2167, December.
    15. Kris De Jaegher & Marc Jegers, 2001. "The physician–patient relationship as a game of strategic information transmission," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(7), pages 651-668, October.
    16. Clemens Puppe & Stephanie Rosenkranz, 2011. "Why Suggest Non‐Binding Retail Prices?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 78(310), pages 317-329, April.
    17. Douglas Norton & R. Isaac, 2012. "Experts with a conflict of interest: a source of ambiguity?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(2), pages 260-277, June.
    18. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    19. Wolfgang Pesendorfer & Asher Wolinsky, 2003. "Second Opinions and Price Competition: Inefficiency in the Market for Expert Advice," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 70(2), pages 417-437.
    20. Ran Spiegler, 2006. "The Market for Quacks," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 73(4), pages 1113-1131.
    21. Robert G. Evans, 1974. "Supplier-Induced Demand: Some Empirical Evidence and Implications," International Economic Association Series, in: Mark Perlman (ed.), The Economics of Health and Medical Care, chapter 10, pages 162-173, Palgrave Macmillan.
    22. Hong, Fuhai & Hossain, Tanjim & List, John A., 2015. "Framing manipulations in contests: A natural field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 372-382.
    23. Taylor, Curtis R, 1995. "The Economics of Breakdowns, Checkups, and Cures," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(1), pages 53-74, February.
    24. Rudolf Kerschbamer & Matthias Sutter & Uwe Dulleck, 2017. "How Social Preferences Shape Incentives in (Experimental) Markets for Credence Goods," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(600), pages 393-416, March.
    25. Pitchik, Carolyn & Schotter, Andrew, 1987. "Honesty in a Model of Strategic Information Transmission," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(5), pages 1032-1036, December.
    26. Lionel Page, 2005. "Des inégalités sociales aux inégalités scolaires. Choix éducatifs et Prospect Theory," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 56(3), pages 615-623.
    27. Devin G. Pope & Maurice E. Schweitzer, 2011. "Is Tiger Woods Loss Averse? Persistent Bias in the Face of Experience, Competition, and High Stakes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(1), pages 129-157, February.
    28. Azevedo, Eduardo M. & Gottlieb, Daniel, 2012. "Risk-neutral firms can extract unbounded profits from consumers with prospect theory preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(3), pages 1291-1299.
    29. Dranove, David, 1988. "Demand Inducement and the Physician/Patient Relationship," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 26(2), pages 281-298, April.
    30. Yuval Salant & Ron Siegel, 2018. "Contracts with Framing," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 10(3), pages 315-346, August.
    31. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i::p:174-180 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bertrand Crettez & Régis Deloche & Marie‐Hélène Jeanneret‐Crettez, 2020. "A demand‐induced overtreatment model with heterogeneous experts," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 22(5), pages 1713-1733, September.
    2. Vincze, János, 2010. "Miért és mitől védjük a fogyasztókat?. Aszimmetrikus információ és/vagy korlátozott racionalitás [Asymmetric information and/or bounded rationality: why are consumers protected and from what?]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(9), pages 725-752.
    3. Mimra, Wanda & Rasch, Alexander & Waibel, Christian, 2016. "Second opinions in markets for expert services: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PB), pages 106-125.
    4. Hyndman, Kyle & Ozerturk, Saltuk, 2011. "Consumer information in a market for expert services," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 628-640.
    5. Liu, Ting & Ma, Ching-to Albert, 2024. "Equilibrium information in credence goods," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 84-101.
    6. Brice Corgnet & Roberto Hernán-González, 2019. "Revisiting the Trade-off Between Risk and Incentives: The Shocking Effect of Random Shocks?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 1096-1114, March.
    7. Ben Greiner & Le Zhang & Chengxiang Tang, 2017. "Separation of prescription and treatment in health care markets: A laboratory experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S3), pages 21-35, December.
    8. Fang Liu & Alexander Rasch & Marco A. Schwarz & Christian Waibel, 2020. "The role of diagnostic ability in markets for expert services," Working Papers 2020-07, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    9. Jonathan de Quidt, 2018. "Your Loss Is My Gain: A Recruitment Experiment with Framed Incentives," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 522-559.
    10. Helmut Bester & Matthias Dahm, 2018. "Credence Goods, Costly Diagnosis and Subjective Evaluation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(611), pages 1367-1394, June.
    11. Laurent Denant-Boemont & Olivier L’Haridon, 2013. "La rationalité à l'épreuve de l'économie comportementale," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(2), pages 35-89.
    12. Alex Markle & George Wu & Rebecca White & Aaron Sackett, 2018. "Goals as reference points in marathon running: A novel test of reference dependence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 19-50, February.
    13. Balafoutas, Loukas & Kerschbamer, Rudolf, 2020. "Credence goods in the literature: What the past fifteen years have taught us about fraud, incentives, and the role of institutions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(C).
    14. Razi Farukh & Anna Kerkhof & Jonas Loebbing, 2020. "Inefficiency and Regulation in Credence Goods Markets with Altruistic Experts," Working Paper Series in Economics 102, University of Cologne, Department of Economics.
    15. Kandul, Serhiy & Lanz, Bruno & Reins, Evert, 2023. "Reciprocity and gift exchange in markets for credence goods," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 52-69.
    16. Stephan Tontrup & Christopher Jon Sprigman, 2022. "Self‐nudging contracts and the positive effects of autonomy—Analyzing the prospect of behavioral self‐management," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 594-676, September.
    17. De Jaegher, Kris & Jegers, Marc, 2000. "A model of physician behaviour with demand inducement," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 231-258, March.
    18. Farukh, Razi & Kerkhof, Anna & Loebbing, Jonas, 2020. "Inefficiency and Regulation in Credence Goods Markets with Altruistic Experts," VfS Annual Conference 2020 (Virtual Conference): Gender Economics 224590, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    19. Nicholas Barberis & Lawrence J. Jin & Baolian Wang, 2021. "Prospect Theory and Stock Market Anomalies," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 76(5), pages 2639-2687, October.
    20. Wagner, Valentin, 2022. "Heterogeneous effects of grade framing," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:86:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s11238-019-09691-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.