IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v19y1999i3p324-338.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Framing Effects in Choices between Multioutcome Life-expectancy Lotteries

Author

Listed:
  • Lionel M. Bernstein
  • Gretchen B. Chapman
  • Arthur S. Elstein

Abstract

Aim . To explore framing or editing effects and a method to debias framing in a clinical context. Method . Clinical scenarios using multioutcome life-expectancy lotteries of equal value required choices between two supplementary drugs that either prolonged or shortened life from the 20-year beneficial effect of a baseline drug. The effects of these supplementary drugs were presented in two conditions, using a between-sub jects design. In segregated editing ( n = 116) the effects were presented separately from the effects of the baseline drug. In integrated editing ( n = 100), effects of supple mentary and baseline drugs were combined in the lottery presentation. Each subject responded to 30 problems. To explore one method of debiasing, another 100 subjects made choices after viewing both segregated and integrated editings of 20 problems (dual framing). Results . Statistically significant preference reversals between segre gated and integrated editing of pure lotteries occurred only when one framing placed outcomes in the gain domain, and the other framing placed them in the loss domain. When both editings resulted in gain-domain outcomes only, there was no framing ef fect. There was a related relationship of framing-effect shifts from losses to gains in mixed-lottery-choice problems. Responses to the dual framing condition did not con sistently coincide with responses to either single framing. In some situations, dual framing eliminated or lessened framing effects. Conclusion . The results support two components of prospect theory, coding outcomes as gains or losses from a reference point, and an s-shaped utility function (concave in gain, convex in loss domains). Pre senting both alternative editings of a complex situation prior to choice more fully in forms the decision maker and may help to reduce framing effects. Given the extent to which preferences shift in response to alternative presentations, it is unclear which choice represents the subject's "true preferences." Key words : life expectancy; mul tioutcome lotteries; framing effects; preference reversal; segregated and integrated editing; prospect theory; utility functions. (Med Decis Making 1999; 19:324-338)

Suggested Citation

  • Lionel M. Bernstein & Gretchen B. Chapman & Arthur S. Elstein, 1999. "Framing Effects in Choices between Multioutcome Life-expectancy Lotteries," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(3), pages 324-338, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:19:y:1999:i:3:p:324-338
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9901900311
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9901900311
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9901900311?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Einhorn, Hillel J & Hogarth, Robin M, 1986. "Decision Making under Ambiguity," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 225-250, October.
    2. Annette M. Cormier O'Connor & Norman F. Boyd & David L. Tritchler & Yuri Kriukov & Heather Sutherland & James E. Till, 1985. "Eliciting Preferences for Alternative Cancer Drug Treatments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 5(4), pages 453-463, December.
    3. 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.
    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. Horst Zank, 2010. "On probabilities and loss aversion," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 243-261, March.
    2. Steven Humphrey, 1999. "Probability Learning, Event-Splitting Effects and the Economic Theory of Choice," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 51-78, February.
    3. Fujikawa, Takemi, 2009. "The hot stove effect in repeated-play decision making under ambiguity," MPRA Paper 17647, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Fabian Herweg & Svenja Hippel & Daniel Müller & Fabio Römeis, 2024. "Axiom Preferences and Choice Mistakes under Risk," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 326, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    5. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    6. Marcello Basili & Stefano Dalle Mura, 2004. "Ambiguity and macroeconomics:a rationale for price stickiness," Department of Economics University of Siena 428, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    7. Pablo Brañas‐Garza & Matteo M. Galizzi & Jeroen Nieboer, 2018. "Experimental And Self‐Reported Measures Of Risk Taking And Digit Ratio (2d:4d): Evidence From A Large, Systematic Study," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 59(3), pages 1131-1157, August.
    8. Wohl, Jennifer B. & Ravenswaay, Eileen O. van & Hoehn, John P., 1995. "The Effect of Ambiguity on Willingness to Pay for Reduced Pesticide Residues," Staff Paper Series 201202, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    9. Kirsten, Johann & Vermeulen, Hes & van Zyl, Karlien & du Rand, Gerrie & du Plessis, Henrietta & Weissnar, Tessa, 2017. "Do South African Consumers have an Appetite for an Origin-based Certification System for Meat Products? A Synthesis of Studies on Perceptions, Preferences and Experiments," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 8(01), pages 1-18, January.
    10. Shawn P. Curley & Mark J. Young & J. Frank Yates, 1989. "Characterizing Physicians' Perceptions of Ambiguity," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 9(2), pages 116-124, June.
    11. Marciano Siniscalchi, 2009. "Vector Expected Utility and Attitudes Toward Variation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(3), pages 801-855, May.
    12. Mercè Roca & Robin Hogarth & A. Maule, 2006. "Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 175-194, May.
    13. Vadym Lepetyuk & Christian A. Stoltenberg, 2012. "Reconciling consumption inequality with income inequality," Working Papers. Serie AD 2012-19, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    14. Volker Wiemann & Thomas Mellewigt, 1998. "Das Risiko-Rendite Paradoxon. Stand der Forschung und Ergebnisse einer empirischen Untersuchung," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 50(6), pages 551-572, June.
    15. Starmer, Chris, 1999. "Experimental Economics: Hard Science or Wasteful Tinkering?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 109(453), pages 5-15, February.
    16. Théodora Dupont-Courtade, 2012. "Insurance demand under ambiguity and conflict for extreme risks: Evidence from a large representative survey," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 12020, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    17. James C. Cox & Maroš Servátka & Radovan Vadovic, 2012. "Status Quo Effects in Fairness Games: Reciprocal Responses to Acts of Commission vs. Acts of Omission," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2012-03, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, revised Mar 2016.
    18. Yehuda Izhakian, 2012. "Ambiguity Measurement," Working Papers 12-01, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    19. Lefebvre, Mathieu & Vieider, Ferdinand M. & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2010. "Incentive effects on risk attitude in small probability prospects," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 115-120, November.
    20. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2012. "A genuine foundation for prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 97-113, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sae:medema:v:19:y:1999:i:3:p:324-338. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.