This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

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

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
G. Salkeld (Social and Public Health Economics Research Group (SPHERe), Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Sydney, Australia)
M. Ryan (Health Economics Research Unit, Department of Public Health, University of Aberdeen, UK)
L. Short (Centre for Public Health Research, Queensland University of Technology, Australia)
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.

Download Info
To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

Publisher Info
Article provided by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. in its journal Health Economics.

Volume (Year): 9 (2000)
Issue (Month): 3 ()
Pages: 267-270
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:9:y:2000:i:3:p:267-270

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).

Related research
Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. 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.
  2. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. " Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
  3. Knetsch, Jack L & Sinden, J A, 1984. "Willingness to Pay and Compensation Demanded: Experimental Evidence of an Unexpected Disparity in Measures of Value," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 99(3), pages 507-21, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-24, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. Morrison, Gwendolyn C, 1997. "Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: Some Evidence of an Endowment Effect," Applied Economics, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 29(4), pages 411-17, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  7. Knetsch, Jack L & Sinden, J A, 1987. "The Persistence of Evaluation Disparities," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 102(3), pages 691-95, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  8. 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 236-40, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Cited by:
(explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)

  1. Neuman, Einat & Neuman, Shoshana, 2006. "Explorations of the Effect of Experience on Preferences: Two Health-Care Case Studies," CEPR Discussion Papers 5659, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  2. 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. [Downloadable!]
  3. Mandy Ryan & Fernando San Miguel, 2003. "Revisiting the axiom of completeness in health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 295-307. [Downloadable!]
  4. Madeleine T. King & Jane Hall & Emily Lancsar & Denzil Fiebig & Ishrat Hossain & Jordan Louviere & Helen K. Reddel & Christine R. Jenkins, 2007. "Patient preferences for managing asthma: results from a discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(7), pages 703-717. [Downloadable!]
  5. Yasushi Ohkusa & Tamie Sugawara, 2006. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and its Application for Policy Evaluation for Medicine or Public Health," Microeconomics Working Papers 667, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research. [Downloadable!]
  6. Einat Neuman & Shoshana Neuman, 2007. "Reference-Dependent Preferences and Loss Aversion: A Discrete Choice Experiment in the Health-Care Sector," IZA Discussion Papers 3238, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA). [Downloadable!]
  7. Jeff Richardson & John McKie, 2005. "Reassurance, regret and uncertainty: testing ex ante sources of (dis)utility and the welfarist account of social welfare," Centre for Health Economics Working Papers 153/05, Monash University, Centre for Health Economics. [Downloadable!]
  8. Kara Hanson & Barbara McPake & Pamela Nakamba & Luke Archard, 2005. "Preferences for hospital quality in Zambia: results from a discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(7), pages 687-701. [Downloadable!]
  9. Mandy Ryan & Cristina Ubach, 2003. "Testing for an experience endowment effect in health care," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 10(7), pages 407-410, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? You too can volunteer with RePEc.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-16.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.