IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2311.07905.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Considering Risk Aversion in Economic Evaluation: A Rank Dependent Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Jacob Smith

Abstract

This paper presents a method for incorporating risk aversion into existing decision tree models used in economic evaluations. The method involves applying a probability weighting function based on rank dependent utility theory to reduced lotteries in the decision tree model. This adaptation embodies the fact that different decision makers can observe the same decision tree model structure but come to different conclusions about the optimal treatment. The proposed solution to this problem is to compensate risk-averse decision makers to use the efficient technology that they are reluctant to adopt.

Suggested Citation

  • Jacob Smith, 2023. "Considering Risk Aversion in Economic Evaluation: A Rank Dependent Approach," Papers 2311.07905, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2311.07905
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.07905
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    2. Han Bleichrodt & David Crainich & Louis Eeckhoudt & Nicolas Treich, 2020. "Risk aversion and the value of diagnostic tests," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 89(2), pages 137-149, September.
    3. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    4. Alejandro Arrieta & Ariadna García‐Prado & Paula González & José Luis Pinto‐Prades, 2017. "Risk attitudes in medical decisions for others: An experimental approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S3), pages 97-113, December.
    5. Audrey Michel-Lepage & Bruno Ventelou & Antoine Nebout & Pierre Verger & Céline Pulcini, 2013. "Cross-sectional survey: risk-averse French GPs use more rapid-antigen diagnostic tests in tonsillitis in children," Post-Print hal-01500874, HAL.
    6. Louis Eeckhoudt & Philippe Godfroid, 2000. "Risk Aversion and the Value of Information," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(4), pages 382-388, December.
    7. 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..
    8. Torrance, George W., 1986. "Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal : A review," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 1-30, March.
    9. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Claxton, Karl & Stoddart, Greg L. & Torrance, George W., 2015. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780199665884.
    10. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    11. Sarin, Rakesh & Wakker, Peter P, 1998. "Dynamic Choice and NonExpected Utility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 87-119, November.
    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. Alexander Zimper, 2011. "Do Bayesians Learn Their Way Out of Ambiguity?," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 269-285, December.
    2. Ludwig, Alexander & Zimper, Alexander, 2006. "Investment behavior under ambiguity: The case of pessimistic decision makers," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 111-130, September.
    3. Spencer, Anne & Rivero-Arias, Oliver & Wong, Ruth & Tsuchiya, Aki & Bleichrodt, Han & Edwards, Rhiannon Tudor & Norman, Richard & Lloyd, Andrew & Clarke, Philip, 2022. "The QALY at 50: One story many voices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    4. Castro, Luciano de & Galvao, Antonio F. & Kim, Jeong Yeol & Montes-Rojas, Gabriel & Olmo, Jose, 2022. "Experiments on portfolio selection: A comparison between quantile preferences and expected utility decision models," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Lovric, M. & Kaymak, U. & Spronk, J., 2008. "A Conceptual Model of Investor Behavior," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-030-F&A, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    7. Christian Gollier & James Hammitt & Nicolas Treich, 2013. "Risk and choice: A research saga," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 129-145, October.
    8. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    9. Massimiliano Amarante & Mario Ghossoub & Edmund Phelps, 2012. "Contracting for Innovation under Knightian Uncertainty," Cahiers de recherche 18-2012, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    10. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Olivier L’Haridon & Horst Zank, 2010. "Separating curvature and elevation: A parametric probability weighting function," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 39-65, August.
    11. Xue Dong He & Sang Hu & Jan Obłój & Xun Yu Zhou, 2017. "Technical Note—Path-Dependent and Randomized Strategies in Barberis’ Casino Gambling Model," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(1), pages 97-103, February.
    12. Yaron Azrieli & Christopher P. Chambers & Paul J. Healy, 2020. "Incentives in experiments with objective lotteries," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(1), pages 1-29, March.
    13. Kerim Keskin, 2016. "Inverse S-shaped probability weighting functions in first-price sealed-bid auctions," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 20(1), pages 57-67, March.
    14. Ariane Charpin, 2018. "Tests des modèles de décision en situation de risque. Le cas des parieurs hippiques en France," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 69(5), pages 779-803.
    15. Moshe Levy & Haim Levy, 2013. "Prospect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 7, pages 129-144, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    16. Bocqueho, Geraldine & Jacquet, Florence & Reynaud, Arnaud, 2011. "Expected Utility or Prospect Theory Maximizers? Results from a Structural Model based on Field-experiment Data," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114257, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Markus Dertwinkel-Kalt & Jonas Frey, 2020. "Optimal Stopping in a Dynamic Salience Model," CESifo Working Paper Series 8496, CESifo.
    18. Mark Schneider & Mikhael Shor, 2016. "The Common Ratio Effect in Choice, Pricing, and Happiness Tasks," Working papers 2016-29, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    19. Zimper, Alexander, 2012. "Asset pricing in a Lucas fruit-tree economy with the best and worst in mind," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 610-628.
    20. Luís Santos-Pinto & Adrian Bruhin & José Mata & Thomas Åstebro, 2015. "Detecting heterogeneous risk attitudes with mixed gambles," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 573-600, December.

    More about this item

    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:arx:papers:2311.07905. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.