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

    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. repec:eee:ecomod:v:216:y:2008:i:3:p:316-322 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Frederick Mosteller & Philip Nogee, 1951. "An Experimental Measurement of Utility," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59, pages 371-371.
    6. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    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)

    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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.