IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cea/doctra/e2007_15.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A new preference reversal in health utility measurement

Author

Abstract

A central assumption in health utility measurement is that preferences are invariant to the elicitation method that is used. This assumptioin is challenged by preferences reversals. Previous studies have observed prefrence resersals between choise and matching tasks and between choise and ranking tasks. We present a new preference reversal that entirely choise-based. Because choise is the basic primitive of economics and utility theory, this preference reversal is more fundamental and troubling. The preference reversal was observed in two studies regarding health states after stroke. Both studies involved large representative samples from the Spanish population, interwied professionally and face-to-face. Possible explanations for the preference reversal are the anticipation of disappointment and elation is risky choise anda the impact of ethical co0nsiderations about the value of live.

Suggested Citation

  • Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades, 2007. "A new preference reversal in health utility measurement," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2007/15, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    • Handle: RePEc:cea:doctra:e2007_15
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.centrodeestudiosandaluces.info/PDFS/E200715.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lena Lundberg & Magnus Johannesson & Dag G.L. Isacson & Lars Borgquist, 1999. "The Relationship between Health-state Utilities and the SF-12 in a General Population," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(2), pages 128-140, April.
    2. Handa, Jagdish, 1977. "Risk, Probabilities, and a New Theory of Cardinal Utility," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 85(1), pages 97-122, February.
    3. Tversky, Amos & Slovic, Paul & Kahneman, Daniel, 1990. "The Causes of Preference Reversal," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 204-217, March.
    4. Fishburn, Peter C, 1978. "On Handa's "New Theory of Cardinal Utility" and the Maximization of Expected Return," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 86(2), pages 321-324, April.
    5. Peter Fishburn, 1980. "A simple model for the utility of gambling," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 45(4), pages 435-448, December.
    6. 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..
    7. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    8. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Sutton, Sara E., 1992. "Scale convergence and utility measurement," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 183-215, July.
    9. Graham Loomes & Robert Sugden, 1986. "Disappointment and Dynamic Consistency in Choice under Uncertainty," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 53(2), pages 271-282.
    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. Ulrich Schmidt & Michael Stolpe, 2011. "Transitivity in health utility measurement: An experimental analysis," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 1-4, December.
    2. Peter P. Wakker & Daniëlle R. M. Timmermans & Irma Machielse, 2007. "The Effects of Statistical Information on Risk and Ambiguity Attitudes, and on Rational Insurance Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(11), pages 1770-1784, November.

    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. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades, 2006. "A New Type of Preference Reversal," Working Papers 06.18, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
    2. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto Prades, 2009. "New evidence of preference reversals in health utility measurement," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(6), pages 713-726, June.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Ulrich Schmidt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2008. "Third-generation prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 203-223, June.
    5. Birnbaum, Michael H., 2004. "Tests of rank-dependent utility and cumulative prospect theory in gambles represented by natural frequencies: Effects of format, event framing, and branch splitting," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 40-65, September.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:7:p:528-546 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Sudeep Bhatia & Graham Loomes & Daniel Read, 2021. "Establishing the laws of preferential choice behavior," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(6), pages 1324-1369, November.
    8. Daniel R. Burghart, 2020. "The two faces of independence: betweenness and homotheticity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 88(4), pages 567-593, May.
    9. Michael H. Birnbaum & Kathleen Johnson & Jay-Lee Longbottom, 2008. "Tests of Cumulative Prospect Theory with graphical displays of probability," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3(7), pages 528-546, October.
    10. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2019. "What are axiomatizations good for?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 339-359, May.
    11. Vjollca Sadiraj, 2014. "Probabilistic risk attitudes and local risk aversion: a paradox," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(4), pages 443-454, December.
    12. Ronald Bosman & Frans Van Winden, 2010. "Global Risk, Investment and Emotions," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 77(307), pages 451-471, July.
    13. Abdellaoui, Mohammed & Bleichrodt, Han, 2007. "Eliciting Gul's theory of disappointment aversion by the tradeoff method," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 631-645, December.
    14. Michael Birnbaum, 2005. "A Comparison of Five Models that Predict Violations of First-Order Stochastic Dominance in Risky Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 263-287, December.
    15. Fehr-Duda, Helga & Epper, Thomas & Bruhin, Adrian & Schubert, Renate, 2011. "Risk and rationality: The effects of mood and decision rules on probability weighting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 14-24.
    16. Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali, 2006. "Les nouveaux modèles de décision dans le risque et l’incertain : quel apport ? [The new models of decision under risk or uncertainty : What approach?]," MPRA Paper 25442, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Michael Birnbaum & Ulrich Schmidt, 2008. "An experimental investigation of violations of transitivity in choice under uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 77-91, August.
    18. Helga Fehr-Duda & Thomas Epper, 2012. "Probability and Risk: Foundations and Economic Implications of Probability-Dependent Risk Preferences," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 4(1), pages 567-593, July.
    19. Hammond, Peter J & Zank, Horst, 2013. "Rationality and Dynamic Consistency under Risk and Uncertainty," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1033, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    20. Lieder, Falk & Griffiths, Tom & Hsu, Ming, 2016. "Over-representation of extreme events in decision-making reflects rational use of cognitive resources," OSF Preprints kxxag, Center for Open Science.
    21. Holzmeister, Felix & Stefan, Matthias, 2019. "The Risk Elicitation Puzzle Revisited: Across-Methods (In)consistency?," OSF Preprints pj9u2, Center for Open Science.
    22. Alessandra Cillo & Marco Bonetti & Giovanni Burro & Clelia Di Serio & Roberta De Filippis & Riccardo Maria Martoni, 2019. "Neurocognitive assessment in obsessive compulsive disorder patients: Adherence to behavioral decision models," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-16, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Health utility measurement; preference reversal; choice behavior;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • L10 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cea:doctra:e2007_15. 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: Susana Mérida (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fcanges.html .

    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.