IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v19y1999i3p324-338.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Framing Effects in Choices between Multioutcome Life-expectancy Lotteries

Author

Listed:
  • Lionel M. Bernstein
  • Gretchen B. Chapman
  • Arthur S. Elstein

Abstract

Aim . To explore framing or editing effects and a method to debias framing in a clinical context. Method . Clinical scenarios using multioutcome life-expectancy lotteries of equal value required choices between two supplementary drugs that either prolonged or shortened life from the 20-year beneficial effect of a baseline drug. The effects of these supplementary drugs were presented in two conditions, using a between-sub jects design. In segregated editing ( n = 116) the effects were presented separately from the effects of the baseline drug. In integrated editing ( n = 100), effects of supple mentary and baseline drugs were combined in the lottery presentation. Each subject responded to 30 problems. To explore one method of debiasing, another 100 subjects made choices after viewing both segregated and integrated editings of 20 problems (dual framing). Results . Statistically significant preference reversals between segre gated and integrated editing of pure lotteries occurred only when one framing placed outcomes in the gain domain, and the other framing placed them in the loss domain. When both editings resulted in gain-domain outcomes only, there was no framing ef fect. There was a related relationship of framing-effect shifts from losses to gains in mixed-lottery-choice problems. Responses to the dual framing condition did not con sistently coincide with responses to either single framing. In some situations, dual framing eliminated or lessened framing effects. Conclusion . The results support two components of prospect theory, coding outcomes as gains or losses from a reference point, and an s-shaped utility function (concave in gain, convex in loss domains). Pre senting both alternative editings of a complex situation prior to choice more fully in forms the decision maker and may help to reduce framing effects. Given the extent to which preferences shift in response to alternative presentations, it is unclear which choice represents the subject's "true preferences." Key words : life expectancy; mul tioutcome lotteries; framing effects; preference reversal; segregated and integrated editing; prospect theory; utility functions. (Med Decis Making 1999; 19:324-338)

Suggested Citation

  • Lionel M. Bernstein & Gretchen B. Chapman & Arthur S. Elstein, 1999. "Framing Effects in Choices between Multioutcome Life-expectancy Lotteries," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(3), pages 324-338, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:19:y:1999:i:3:p:324-338
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9901900311
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9901900311
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9901900311?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Einhorn, Hillel J & Hogarth, Robin M, 1986. "Decision Making under Ambiguity," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 225-250, October.
    2. Annette M. Cormier O'Connor & Norman F. Boyd & David L. Tritchler & Yuri Kriukov & Heather Sutherland & James E. Till, 1985. "Eliciting Preferences for Alternative Cancer Drug Treatments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 5(4), pages 453-463, December.
    3. Battalio, Raymond C & Kagel, John H & Jiranyakul, Komain, 1990. "Testing between Alternative Models of Choice under Uncertainty: Some Initial Results," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 25-50, March.
    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. Horst Zank, 2010. "On probabilities and loss aversion," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 243-261, March.
    2. Steven Humphrey, 1999. "Probability Learning, Event-Splitting Effects and the Economic Theory of Choice," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 51-78, February.
    3. Pablo Brañas‐Garza & Matteo M. Galizzi & Jeroen Nieboer, 2018. "Experimental And Self‐Reported Measures Of Risk Taking And Digit Ratio (2d:4d): Evidence From A Large, Systematic Study," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 59(3), pages 1131-1157, August.
    4. Shawn P. Curley & Mark J. Young & J. Frank Yates, 1989. "Characterizing Physicians' Perceptions of Ambiguity," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 9(2), pages 116-124, June.
    5. Lefebvre, Mathieu & Vieider, Ferdinand M. & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2010. "Incentive effects on risk attitude in small probability prospects," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 115-120, November.
    6. Paul K. J. Han & William M. P. Klein & Tom Lehman & Bill Killam & Holly Massett & Andrew N. Freedman, 2011. "Communication of Uncertainty Regarding Individualized Cancer Risk Estimates," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(2), pages 354-366, March.
    7. Matthew P. Taylor, 2017. "Information Acquisition Under Risky Conditions Across Real And Hypothetical Settings," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(1), pages 352-367, January.
    8. Loïc Berger, 2014. "The Impact of Ambiguity Prudence on Insurance and Prevention," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2014-08, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    9. Seidl, C. & Traub, S., 1996. "Rational Choice and the Relevance of Irrelevant Alternatives," Other publications TiSEM 26452450-9ecd-45b4-bc45-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    10. D. A. Peel & Jie Zhang & D. Law, 2008. "The Markowitz model of utility supplemented with a small degree of probability distortion as an explanation of outcomes of Allais experiments over large and small payoffs and gambling on unlikely outc," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(1), pages 17-26.
    11. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2012. "A genuine foundation for prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 97-113, October.
    12. Blavatskyy, Pavlo R., 2006. "Violations of betweenness or random errors?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 34-38, April.
    13. Andrea Lippi & Laura Barbieri & Mariacristina Piva & Werner De Bondt, 2018. "Time-varying risk behavior and prior investment outcomes: Evidence from Italy," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(5), pages 471-483, September.
    14. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2005. "Are Universal Preferences Possible? Calibration Results for Non-Expected Utility Theories," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 633, Boston College Department of Economics.
    15. Peter, Richard & Ying, Jie, 2020. "Do you trust your insurer? Ambiguity about contract nonperformance and optimal insurance demand," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 938-954.
    16. Clement, Michael B. & Hales, Jeffrey & Xue, Yanfeng, 2011. "Understanding analysts' use of stock returns and other analysts' revisions when forecasting earnings," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 279-299, April.
    17. Scholz, Roland W. & Czichos, Reiner & Parycek, Peter & Lampoltshammer, Thomas J., 2020. "Organizational vulnerability of digital threats: A first validation of an assessment method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 282(2), pages 627-643.
    18. Louis Lévy-Garboua, 1999. "Expected Utility and Cognitive Consistency," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-03674666, HAL.
    19. Wong, Kit Pong, 2024. "Optimal nonlinear pricing by a monopoly with smooth ambiguity preferences," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 89(PA), pages 594-604.
    20. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i::p:389-395 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Mercè Roca & Robin Hogarth & A. Maule, 2006. "Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 175-194, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sae:medema:v:19:y:1999:i:3:p:324-338. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.