Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Empirical evidence of inconsistency in Standard Gamble choices under direct and indirect elicitation methods

Contents:

Author Info

  • Susan Chilton
  • Anne Spencer
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    Expected Utility Theory (EUT) underlies the Standard Gamble (SG) method for eliciting people's preferences towards safety policy and risky treatments. Increasingly surveys using this method decompose the SG questions into two or more intermediate questions. Under the EUT assumption of procedural invariance these indirect responses are theoretically equivalent to those elicited directly through one question. We investigate the issue empirically in two studies, both of which find that procedure invariance is violated. Despite this, and the differences in the direction of the discrepancies that we observe in these studies, we show how these results are in fact consistent with an alternative theory to EUT - Prospect Theory - and discuss the implications for future policy and research.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://www.sjes.ch/papers/2001-I-7.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES) in its journal Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics.

    Volume (Year): 137 (2001)
    Issue (Month): I (March)
    Pages: 65-86

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:ses:arsjes:2001-i-7

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: c/o SNB/BNS, Börsenstrasse 15, PO Box 2800, CH-8022 Zürich
    Phone: +41 (0)44 631 32 34
    Fax: +41 (0)44 631 39 01
    Email:
    Web page: http://www.sjes.ch
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords:

    References

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    Citations

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

    Cited by:
    1. Chilton, Susan M. & Burgess, Diane & Hutchinson, W. George, 2006. "The relative value of farm animal welfare," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 353-363, September.
    2. Mandy Ryan & Mabelle Amaya-Amaya, 2005. "' Threats ' to and hopes for estimating benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 609-619.
    3. Anne Spencer, 2001. "The Implications of Linking Questions within the SG and TTO Methods," Working Papers 438, Queen Mary, University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    4. Anne Spencer, 2001. "The Time Trade-Off Method: An Exploratory Study," Working Papers 437, Queen Mary, University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    5. Adam Oliver, 2005. "Testing the internal consistency of the lottery equivalents method using health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 149-159.
    6. Chen Li & Zhihua Li & Peter Wakker, 2014. "If nudge cannot be applied: a litmus test of the readers’ stance on paternalism," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(3), pages 297-315, March.
    7. Anne Spencer, 2004. "The implications of linking questions within the SG and TTO methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(8), pages 807-818.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ses:arsjes:2001-i-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peter Steiner).

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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