IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Emotions and decision rules in discrete choice experiments for valuing health care programmes for the elderly

  • Araña, Jorge E.
  • León, Carmelo J.
  • Hanemann, Michael W.

The evaluation of health care programmes is commonly approached with stated preference methods such as contingent valuation or discrete choice experiments. These methods provide useful information for policy decisions involving health regulations and infrastructures for health care. However, econometric modelling of these data usually relies on a number of maintained assumptions, such as the use of the compensatory or random utility maximization rule. On the other hand, health policy issues can raise emotional concerns among individuals, which might induce other types of choice behaviour. In this paper we consider potential deviations from the general compensatory rule, and how these deviations might be explained by the emotional state of the subject. We utilized a mixture econometric model which allows for various potential decisions rules within the sample, such as the complete ignorance, conjunctive rule and satisfactory rules. The results show that deviations from the full linear compensatory decision rule are predominant, but they are significantly less observed for those subjects with a medium emotional state about the issue of caring for the health state of the elderly. The implication is that the emotional impact of health policy issues should be taken into account when making assumptions of individual choice behaviour in health valuation methods.

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:
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Health Economics.

Volume (Year): 27 (2008)
Issue (Month): 3 (May)
Pages: 753-769

in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:jhecon:v:27:y:2008:i:3:p:753-769
Contact details of provider: Web page:

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.:

as in new window
  1. Tara Maddala & Kathryn A. Phillips & F. Reed Johnson, 2003. "An experiment on simplifying conjoint analysis designs for measuring preferences," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(12), pages 1035-1047.
  2. Fernando San Miguel & Mandy Ryan & Mabelle Amaya-Amaya, 2005. "'Irrational' stated preferences: a quantitative and qualitative investigation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 307-322.
  3. Ryan, Mandy & Scott, David A. & Donaldson, Cam, 2004. "Valuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 237-258, March.
  4. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
  5. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard, 1986. "Fairness as a Constraint on Profit Seeking: Entitlements in the Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 728-41, September.
  6. Rosalie Viney & Elizabeth Savage & Jordan Louviere, 2005. "Empirical investigation of experimental design properties of discrete choice experiments in health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(4), pages 349-362.
  7. Richins, Marsha L, 1997. " Measuring Emotions in the Consumption Experience," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(2), pages 127-46, September.
  8. Dennis H. Gensch, 1987. "A Two-Stage Disaggregate Attribute Choice Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 223-239.
  9. repec:cup:cbooks:9780521788304 is not listed on IDEAS
  10. Swait, Joffre & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2001. "Choice Environment, Market Complexity, and Consumer Behavior: A Theoretical and Empirical Approach for Incorporating Decision Complexity into Models of Consumer Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 141-167, November.
  11. Jorge Arana & Carmelo Leon, 2006. "Modelling unobserved heterogeneity in contingent valuation of health risks," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(19), pages 2315-2325.
  12. Amartya Sen, 1997. "Maximization and the Act of Choice," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(4), pages 745-780, July.
  13. Timothy J. Gilbride & Greg M. Allenby, 2004. "A Choice Model with Conjunctive, Disjunctive, and Compensatory Screening Rules," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 391-406, October.
  14. Arana, Jorge E. & Leon, Carmelo J., 2005. "Flexible mixture distribution modeling of dichotomous choice contingent valuation with heterogenity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 170-188, July.
  15. Jorge E. Ara�a & Carmelo J. León, 2002. "Willingness to pay for health risk reduction in the context of altruism," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(7), pages 623-635.
  16. Chiang, Jeongwen & Chib, Siddhartha & Narasimhan, Chakravarthi, 1998. "Markov chain Monte Carlo and models of consideration set and parameter heterogeneity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 223-248, November.
  17. Irwin, Julie R., 1994. "Buying/Selling Price Preference Reversals: Preference for Environmental Changes in Buying versus Selling Modes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 431-457, December.
  18. Damaraju Raghavarao, 2003. "Sufficient conditions for balanced incomplete block designs to be minimal fractional combinatorial treatment designs," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 90(2), pages 465-470, June.
  19. Bettman, James R & Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W, 1998. " Constructive Consumer Choice Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 25(3), pages 187-217, December.
  20. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2003. "Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 281-294.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jhecon:v:27:y:2008:i:3:p:753-769. 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: (Zhang, Lei)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.