IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v9y2000i3p267-270.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The veil of experience: do consumers prefer what they know best?

Author

Listed:
  • G. Salkeld
  • M. Ryan
  • L. Short

Abstract

There is growing interest from health policy makers in eliciting consumer preferences for health care services. This is particularly the case when assessing the likely impact of innovations. Some people may be wary of innovations because they prefer the service they have previously experienced. Consumer preferences for an existing and a hypothetical new bowel cancer testing programme were measured using a discrete choice experiment questionnaire. The results showed that consumers had a statistically significant preference for the existing service (status quo) when all other factors remained constant. It suggested that consumers make decisions under a ‘veil of experience’. Possible explanations for this result include the endowment effect, status quo bias and loss aversion. Future evaluations of health service innovation should be aware of this tendency to favour the status quo. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • G. Salkeld & M. Ryan & L. Short, 2000. "The veil of experience: do consumers prefer what they know best?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(3), pages 267-270, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:9:y:2000:i:3:p:267-270
    DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(200004)9:3<267::AID-HEC511>3.0.CO;2-H
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(200004)9:33.0.CO;2-H
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(200004)9:3<267::AID-HEC511>3.0.CO;2-H?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. Jack L. Knetsch & J. A. Sinden, 1984. "Willingness to Pay and Compensation Demanded: Experimental Evidence of an Unexpected Disparity in Measures of Value," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 99(3), pages 507-521.
    2. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
    3. Morrison, Gwendolyn C, 1997. "Resolving Differences in Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(1), pages 236-240, March.
    4. Mandy Ryan & Emma McIntosh & Phil Shackley, 1998. "Methodological issues in the application of conjoint analysis in health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(4), pages 373-378, June.
    5. 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..
    6. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    7. Jack L. Knetsch & J. A. Sinden, 1987. "The Persistence of Evaluation Disparities," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 102(3), pages 691-695.
    8. Gwendolyn Morrison, 1997. "Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: some evidence of an endowment effect," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(4), pages 411-417.
    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. Ulrich Schmidt & Stefan Traub, 2009. "An Experimental Investigation of the Disparity Between WTA and WTP for Lotteries," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 66(3), pages 229-262, March.
    2. Morrison, Gwendolyn C., 2000. "WTP and WTA in repeated trial experiments: Learning or leading?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 57-72, February.
    3. Bruno S. Frey & Reiner Eichenberger, 1989. "Should Social Scientists Care about Choice Anomalies?," Rationality and Society, , vol. 1(1), pages 101-122, July.
    4. Thomas A. Rietz, 1991. "Arbitrage," Discussion Papers 958, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    5. Summers, Barbara & Duxbury, Darren, 2012. "Decision-dependent emotions and behavioral anomalies," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 226-238.
    6. Mandy Ryan & Cristina Ubach, 2003. "Testing for an experience endowment effect in health care," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(7), pages 407-410.
    7. John K. Horowitz & Kenneth E. McConnell & James J. Murphy, 2013. "Behavioral foundations of environmental economics and valuation," Chapters, in: John A. List & Michael K. Price (ed.), Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment, chapter 4, pages 115-156, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Zhao, Jinhua & Kling, Catherine L., 2001. "A new explanation for the WTP/WTA disparity," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 73(3), pages 293-300, December.
    9. Roth, Gerrit, 2006. "Predicting the Gap between Willingness to Accept and Willingness to Pay," Munich Dissertations in Economics 4901, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    10. Morrison, Gwendolyn C., 1998. "Understanding the disparity between WTP and WTA: endowment effect, substitutability, or imprecise preferences?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 189-194, May.
    11. Edward J. Lopez & W. Robert Nelson, 2005. "The Endowment Effect in a Public Good Experiment," Experimental 0512001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Lee, Boram & Fraser, Ian & Fillis, Ian, 2022. "To sell or not to sell? Pricing strategies of newly-graduated artists," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 595-604.
    13. Brown, Thomas C. & Gregory, Robin, 1999. "Why the WTA-WTP disparity matters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 323-335, March.
    14. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ballester, 2009. "A theory of reference-dependent behavior," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 427-455, September.
    15. Matthey, Astrid, 2005. "Getting used to risks: Reference dependence and risk inclusion," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2005-036, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    16. Yuval Rottenstreich & Alex Markle & Johannes Müller-Trede, 2023. "Risky Sure Things," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(8), pages 4707-4720, August.
    17. Oben K Bayrak & Bengt Kriström, 2016. "Is there a valuation gap? The case of interval valuations," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 36(1), pages 218-236.
    18. Fershtman, Chaim, 1996. "On the value of incumbency managerial reference points and loss aversion," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 245-257, April.
    19. Heutel, Garth, 2019. "Prospect theory and energy efficiency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 236-254.
    20. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2012. "A genuine foundation for prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 97-113, October.

    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:wly:hlthec:v:9:y:2000:i:3:p:267-270. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.