IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v118y2012i1p82-97.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An examination of the proportional difference model to describe and predict health decisions

Author

Listed:
  • González-Vallejo, Claudia
  • Harman, Jason L.
  • Mullet, Etienne
  • Muñoz Sastre, Maria T.

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • González-Vallejo, Claudia & Harman, Jason L. & Mullet, Etienne & Muñoz Sastre, Maria T., 2012. "An examination of the proportional difference model to describe and predict health decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 82-97.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:118:y:2012:i:1:p:82-97
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.12.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597811001543
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.12.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Piñeiro, Gervasio & Perelman, Susana & Guerschman, Juan P. & Paruelo, José M., 2008. "How to evaluate models: Observed vs. predicted or predicted vs. observed?," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 216(3), pages 316-322.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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 529-563, June.
    5. 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..
    6. Frederick Mosteller & Philip Nogee, 1951. "An Experimental Measurement of Utility," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(5), pages 371-371.
    7. 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.
    8. 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 623-638, September.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Baron, Jonathan & Spranca, Mark, 1997. "Protected Values," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 1-16, April.
    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. Louis Lévy-Garboua, 1999. "Expected Utility and Cognitive Consistency," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-03674666, HAL.
    2. Ryan O. Murphy & Robert H. W. ten Brincke, 2018. "Hierarchical Maximum Likelihood Parameter Estimation for Cumulative Prospect Theory: Improving the Reliability of Individual Risk Parameter Estimates," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 308-328, January.
    3. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2010. "Allais paradoxes can be reversed by presenting choices in canonical split form," Kiel Working Papers 1615, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    4. Henry Stott, 2006. "Cumulative prospect theory's functional menagerie," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 101-130, March.
    5. Harrison, Glenn W, 1994. "Expected Utility Theory and the Experimentalists," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 223-253.
    6. Manel Baucells & Antonio Villasís, 2010. "Stability of risk preferences and the reflection effect of prospect theory," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 193-211, February.
    7. Horst Zank, 2007. "On the Paradigm of Loss Aversion," Economics Discussion Paper Series 0710, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    8. James Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Ulrich Schmidt, 2015. "Paradoxes and mechanisms for choice under risk," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 215-250, June.
    9. Graham Loomes & Ganna Pogrebna, 2017. "Do Preference Reversals Disappear When We Allow for Probabilistic Choice?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(1), pages 166-184, January.
    10. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2018. "A second-generation disappointment aversion theory of decision making under risk," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(1), pages 29-60, January.
    11. Nathaniel T. Wilcox, 2023. "Unusual Estimates of Probability Weighting Functions," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Models of Risk Preferences: Descriptive and Normative Challenges, volume 22, pages 69-106, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    12. Wilcox, Nathaniel T., 2011. "'Stochastically more risk averse:' A contextual theory of stochastic discrete choice under risk," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 89-104, May.
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:2:y:2007:i::p:115-125 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Charles-Cadogan, G., 2021. "Incoherent Preferences," CRETA Online Discussion Paper Series 69, Centre for Research in Economic Theory and its Applications CRETA.
    15. Nathaniel T. Wilcox, 2015. "Error and Generalization in Discrete Choice Under Risk," Working Papers 15-11, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    16. George Wu & Alex B. Markle, 2008. "An Empirical Test of Gain-Loss Separability in Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1322-1335, July.
    17. Bethany Weber, 2007. "The effects of losses and event splitting on the Allais paradox," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 115-125, April.
    18. Battalio, Raymond C & Kagel, John H & Jiranyakul, Komain, 1990. "Testing between Alternative Models of Choice under Uncertainty: Some Initial Results," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 25-50, March.
    19. Neil Stewart & Stian Reimers & Adam J. L. Harris, 2015. "On the Origin of Utility, Weighting, and Discounting Functions: How They Get Their Shapes and How to Change Their Shapes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(3), pages 687-705, March.
    20. Loehman, Edna, 1998. "Testing risk aversion and nonexpected utility theories," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 285-302, January.
    21. 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.

    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:eee:jobhdp:v:118:y:2012:i:1:p:82-97. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    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.