Author
Listed:
- Joseph G. Eisenhauer
- Kristine E. Principe
Abstract
Researchers have commonly used financial gambles to assess risk preferences, though attitudes regarding monetary gambles may differ from those concerning health risks. Moreover, the conventional measure of risk preference—the Pratt-Arrow coefficient of relative risk aversion—is a point-elasticity suitable only for trivial risks, whereas the risks pertaining to medical treatment—often involving life-ordeath decisions—are quite substantial. Our objective is to examine attitudes toward health risks and the variables that influence those attitudes. In addition to the conventional metric, we employ an alternative measure of risk aversion designed for large-scale risks; the latter is calculated as an arc-elasticity of marginal utility. Both measures are applied to responses from a health preference survey, which incorporates a standard gamble over longevity. Measured risk aversion is then related to health and demographic variables using multiple linear regressions. Our research suggests that tolerance of health risks may be influenced by an endowment effect reflecting the asymmetry of medical information between patients and providers. We also find that the arc-elasticity measure captures more of the significant differences and has a stronger correlation to demographic and socio-economic variables than does the more traditional point-elasticity measure, indicating that the conventional measures of risk aversion are indeed ill suited to large-scale risks such as those involving health. In addition, our results suggest that health-related risk preferences may differ from financial risk attitudes. Although our sample is relatively small and largely homogeneous, these results collectively provide a basis for replication and a justification for additional study on the measurement of risk aversion with regard to health.
Suggested Citation
Joseph G. Eisenhauer & Kristine E. Principe, 2012.
"Measuring Aversion to Health Risks,"
Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, AMH International, vol. 4(2), pages 96-107, February.
Handle:
RePEc:rnd:arjebs:v:4:y:2012:i:2:id:2382
DOI: 10.22610/jebs.v4i2.307
Download full text from publisher
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:rnd:arjebs:v:4:y:2012:i:2:id:2382. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: AMH International (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://amhinternational.com/jebs .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.