Measuring people's preferences regarding ageism in health: some methodological issues and some fresh evidence
In this paper, we outline the three main concepts of 'ageism'; health maximisation ageism, productivity ageism, and fair innings ageism. We provide a methodological overview of the existing empirical literature on people's preferences regarding age and classify these studies according to the types of questions that have been asked. We consider some of the methodological issues involved in eliciting preferences regarding ageism and propose using a fixed duration of benefit rather than, as some studies have done, a benefit that lasts for a full lifetime. Informed by this discussion, we present the results from our own empirical study, carried out in the UK, which combines qualitative and quantitative methods to explore the reasons people have for choosing one age over another. In so doing, we are able to consider the extent to which respondents might bring extraneous factors to bear on their responses and/or disregard relevant information (such as that relating to the fixed nature of the benefit). The results suggest that people are broadly in favour of giving priority to younger over older people, based on arguments relating to both productivity ageism and fair innings ageism. However, respondents appear to assume that a benefit would last for a full lifetime (even if they are told to assume a fixed benefit), unless they are asked to consider a 'full-life' benefit first. This particular framing effect has important implications for preference elicitation studies, suggesting that if you want people to answer the question you have in mind, first ask them the question you think they may have in mind.
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): 57 (2003)
Issue (Month): 4 (August)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:57:y:2003:i:4:p:687-696. 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)
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.