IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v26y2006i4p338-346.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the Reference Point in Prospect Theory: Gambles for Length of Life

Author

Listed:
  • Sylvie M. C. van Osch

    (Leiden University Medical Center, Department of Medical Decision Making, J10-S, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, Netherlands; phone: +31 (0)71-5264570; fax: +31 (0)71-5266838; s.m.c.van_osch@lumc.nl)

  • Wilbert B. van den Hout
  • Anne M. Stiggelbout

    (Department of Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands)

Abstract

Attitude toward risk is an important factor determining patient preferences. Risk behavior has been shown to be strongly dependent on the perception of the outcome as either a gain or a loss. According to prospect theory, the reference point determines how an outcome is perceived. However, no theory on the location of the reference point exists, and for the health domain, there is no direct evidence for the location of the reference point. This article combines qualitative with quantitative data to provide evidence of the reference point in life-year certainty equivalent (CE) gambles and to explore the psychology behind the reference point. The authors argue that goals (aspirations) in life influence the reference point. While thinking aloud, 45 healthy respondents gave certainty equivalents for life-year CE gambles with long and short durations of survival. Contrary to suggestions from the literature, qualitative data argued that the offered certainty equivalent most frequently served as the reference point. Thus, respondents perceived life-year CE gambles as mixed. Framing of the question and goals set in life appeared to be important factors behind the psychology of the reference point. On the basis of the authors' quantitative and qualitative data, they argue that goals alter the perception of outcomes as described by prospect theory by influencing the reference point. This relationship is more apparent for the near future as opposed to the remote future, as goals are mostly set for the near future.

Suggested Citation

  • Sylvie M. C. van Osch & Wilbert B. van den Hout & Anne M. Stiggelbout, 2006. "Exploring the Reference Point in Prospect Theory: Gambles for Length of Life," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(4), pages 338-346, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:26:y:2006:i:4:p:338-346
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X06290484
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X06290484
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X06290484?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. Miyamoto, John M. & Eraker, Stephen A., 1989. "Parametric models of the utility of survival duration: Tests of axioms in a generic utility framework," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 166-202, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier, 2013. "Prospect theory in the health domain: A quantitative assessment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1057-1065.
    2. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Alessandra Cillo, 2015. "A Tailor-Made Test of Intransitive Choice," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 63(1), pages 198-211, February.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:1:p:16-24 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Han Bleichrodt & Yu Gao & Kirsten I. M. Rohde, 2016. "A measurement of decreasing impatience for health and money," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 213-231, June.
    5. Foster, Gigi & Frijters, Paul & Johnston, David W., 2012. "The triumph of hope over disappointment: A note on the utility value of good health expectations," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 206-214.
    6. Stephane Hess & Amanda Stathopoulos & Andrew Daly, 2012. "Allowing for heterogeneous decision rules in discrete choice models: an approach and four case studies," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 565-591, May.
    7. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Vitalie Spinu, 2020. "Searching for the Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 93-112, January.
    8. Stefan A. Lipman & Werner B.F. Brouwer & Arthur E. Attema, 2019. "QALYs without bias? Nonparametric correction of time trade‐off and standard gamble weights based on prospect theory," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(7), pages 843-854, July.
    9. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "A test of independence of discounting from quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 22-34.
    10. Erik Nord & Anja Undrum Enge & Veronica Gundersen, 2010. "QALYs: is the value of treatment proportional to the size of the health gain?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(5), pages 596-607, May.
    11. Adam Oliver, 2018. "Your money and your life: Risk attitudes over gains and losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 29-50, August.
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i::p:162-173 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Amanda M. Wilson & Irene Mussio & Susan Chilton & Lynn B. Gerald & Rachael M. Jones & Frank A. Drews & Judy S. LaKind & Paloma I. Beamer, 2022. "A Novel Application of Risk–Risk Tradeoffs in Occupational Health: Nurses’ Occupational Asthma and Infection Risk Perceptions Related to Cleaning and Disinfection during COVID-19," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-14, December.
    14. Kim, Kyungah & Kim, Junghun, 2024. "The study of brand loyalty and switching cost on OTT bundled service choice: Focusing on reference-dependent preferences in the saturated market," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    15. Astrid Matthey & Nadja Dwenger, 2007. "Don't aim too high: the potential costs of high aspirations," Jena Economics Research Papers 2007-097, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    16. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2012. "A genuine foundation for prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 97-113, October.
    17. Stefan A. Lipman & Arthur E. Attema & Matthijs M. Versteegh, 2022. "Correcting for discounting and loss aversion in composite time trade‐off," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(8), pages 1633-1648, August.
    18. Lipman, Stefan A. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Attema, Arthur E., 2020. "Living up to expectations: Experimental tests of subjective life expectancy as reference point in time trade-off and standard gamble," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    19. Oliver, Adam, 2018. "Your money and your life: risk attitudes over gains and losses," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 88583, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    20. Jose-Luis Pinto-Prades & Jose-Maria Abellan-Perpiñan, 2012. "When normative and descriptive diverge: how to bridge the difference," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(4), pages 569-584, April.
    21. Bhavani Shanker Uppari & Sameer Hasija, 2019. "Modeling Newsvendor Behavior: A Prospect Theory Approach," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 481-500, July.
    22. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier & Pinto, Jose Luis, 2015. "Estimating sign-dependent societal preferences for quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 229-243.
    23. Einat Neuman & Shoshona Neuman, 2008. "Reference-dependent preferences and loss aversion: A discrete choice experiment in the health-care sector," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 162-173, February.
    24. Abellan-Perpiñan, Jose Maria & Bleichrodt, Han & Pinto-Prades, Jose Luis, 2009. "The predictive validity of prospect theory versus expected utility in health utility measurement," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 1039-1047, December.
    25. Helen Colby & Gretchen B. Chapman, 2013. "Savings, subgoals, and reference points," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(1), pages 16-24, January.

    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. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier & Pinto, Jose Luis, 2016. "An elicitation of utility for quality of life under prospect theory," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 121-134.
    2. Arthur E. Attema & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier l’Haridon & Stefan A. Lipman, 2020. "A comparison of individual and collective decision making for standard gamble and time trade-off," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(3), pages 465-473, April.
    3. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier, 2013. "Prospect theory in the health domain: A quantitative assessment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1057-1065.
    4. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto, 2012. "Conceptual Foundations for Health Utility Measurement," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 35, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. José Mª Abellán & José Luis Pinto & Ildefonso Méndez & Xabier Badía, 2004. "A test of the predictive validity of non-linear QALY models using time trade-off utilities," Economics Working Papers 741, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    6. Jose Mª Abellán Perpiñán & Fernando Ignacio Sánchez Martínez & Jorge Eduardo Martínez Pérez & Ildefonso Méndez Martínez, 2009. "The QALY model wich came in from a general population survey: roughly multiplicative, broadly nonlinear and sometimes contex-dependt," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2009/04, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    7. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto & Peter P. Wakker, 2001. "Making Descriptive Use of Prospect Theory to Improve the Prescriptive Use of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(11), pages 1498-1514, November.
    8. Lancsar, Emily & Gu, Yuanyuan & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte & Butler, Jim & Ratcliffe, Julie & Bulfone, Liliana & Donaldson, Cam, 2020. "The relative value of different QALY types," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    9. Lipman, Stefan A. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Attema, Arthur E., 2020. "Living up to expectations: Experimental tests of subjective life expectancy as reference point in time trade-off and standard gamble," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    10. Stefan A. Lipman & Werner B.F. Brouwer & Arthur E. Attema, 2019. "QALYs without bias? Nonparametric correction of time trade‐off and standard gamble weights based on prospect theory," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(7), pages 843-854, July.
    11. Stefan A. Lipman & Werner B. F. Brouwer & Arthur E. Attema, 2019. "A QALY loss is a QALY loss is a QALY loss: a note on independence of loss aversion from health states," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 419-426, April.
    12. José‐María Abellán‐Perpiñán & José‐Luis Pinto‐Prades & Ildefonso Méndez‐Martínez & Xabier Badía‐Llach, 2006. "Towards a better QALY model," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 665-676, July.

    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:26:y:2006:i:4:p:338-346. 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.