An examination of the proportional difference model to describe and predict health decisions
Three studies tested whether the proportional difference rule, PD, of the Stochastic Difference Model (SDM, González-Vallejo, 2002) describes decisions under both risk and certainty with a single rule. The SDM characterizes how individuals make trade-offs between non-comparable attributes when choosing. The PD rule assumes that options are compared attribute-wise: proportional advantages favoring an option in a given attribute move the decision maker towards that option; proportional disadvantages move the decision maker away from that option. The model was tested in health domains: choices of health treatments and of health products. Health treatment options were described in terms of probability of survival and probability of side effects resulting from the treatment. More invasive treatments offered higher survival rates, but were also more likely to result in side effects. Health products were cereals and energy drinks. Data across the different health domains showed good support for PD using different model evaluation 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.
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.
Volume (Year): 118 (2012)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp|
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.:
- Gonzalez-Vallejo, Claudia & Reid, Aaron A., 2006. "Quantifying persuasion effects on choice with the decision threshold of the stochastic choice model," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 100(2), pages 250-267, July.
- Baron, Jonathan & Spranca, Mark, 1997. "Protected Values," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 1-16, April.
- Birnbaum, Michael H. & Chavez, Alfredo, 1997. "Tests of Theories of Decision Making: Violations of Branch Independence and Distribution Independence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 161-194, August.
- Camerer, Colin F, 1989. "An Experimental Test of Several Generalized Utility Theories," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 61-104, April.
- Pavlo Blavatskyy & Ganna Pogrebna, 2010. "Reevaluating evidence on myopic loss aversion: aggregate patterns versus individual choices," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 159-171, February.
- Grether, David M. & Plott, Charles R., .
"Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon,"
152, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
- Grether, David M & Plott, Charles R, 1979. "Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 623-38, September.
- Frederick Mosteller & Philip Nogee, 1951. "An Experimental Measurement of Utility," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59, pages 371.
- Schoemaker, Paul J H, 1982. "The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 20(2), pages 529-63, June.
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
7656, David K. Levine.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
- 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.
- Birnbaum, Michael H. & LaCroix, Adam R., 2008. "Dimension integration: Testing models without trade-offs," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 122-133, January.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:118:y:2012:i:1:p:82-97. 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: (Shamier, Wendy)
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.