IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v18y2009i6p713-726.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

New evidence of preference reversals in health utility measurement

Author

Listed:
  • Han Bleichrodt
  • Jose Luis Pinto Prades

Abstract

A central assumption in health utility measurement is that preferences are invariant to the elicitation method used. This assumption is challenged by preference reversals. Previous studies have observed preference reversals between choice and matching tasks and between choice and ranking tasks. We present a preference reversal that is entirely derived from choices, the basic primitive of economics and utility theory. The preference reversal was observed in two studies regarding health states after stroke. Both studies involved large representative samples from the Spanish population, interviewed professionally, and face‐to‐face. Possible explanations for the preference reversal are the anticipation of disappointment and elation in risky choice and the impact of ethical considerations about the value of life. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto Prades, 2009. "New evidence of preference reversals in health utility measurement," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(6), pages 713-726, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:18:y:2009:i:6:p:713-726
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.1405
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1405
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.1405?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. Leslie A. Lenert & Cathy D. Sherbourne & Valerie Reyna, 2001. "Utility Elicitation Using Single-Item Questions Compared with a Computerized Interview," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(2), pages 97-104, April.
    2. Lena Lundberg & Magnus Johannesson & Dag G.L. Isacson & Lars Borgquist, 1999. "The Relationship between Health-state Utilities and the SF-12 in a General Population," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(2), pages 128-140, April.
    3. Handa, Jagdish, 1977. "Risk, Probabilities, and a New Theory of Cardinal Utility," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 85(1), pages 97-122, February.
    4. Fishburn, Peter C, 1978. "On Handa's "New Theory of Cardinal Utility" and the Maximization of Expected Return," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 86(2), pages 321-324, April.
    5. Peter Fishburn, 1980. "A simple model for the utility of gambling," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 45(4), pages 435-448, December.
    6. 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..
    7. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    8. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Sutton, Sara E., 1992. "Scale convergence and utility measurement," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 183-215, July.
    9. Enrico Diecidue & Ulrich Schmidt & Peter P. Wakker, 2004. "The Utility of Gambling Reconsidered," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 241-259, December.
    10. Mellers, Barbara & Weiss, Robin & Birnbaum, Michael, 1992. "Violations of Dominance in Pricing Judgments," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 73-90, February.
    11. Ian Bateman & Brett Day & Graham Loomes & Robert Sugden, 2007. "Can ranking techniques elicit robust values?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 49-66, February.
    12. Graham Loomes & Robert Sugden, 1986. "Disappointment and Dynamic Consistency in Choice under Uncertainty," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 53(2), pages 271-282.
    13. Oliver, Adam, 2006. "Further evidence of preference reversals: Choice, valuation and ranking over distributions of life expectancy," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 803-820, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eve Wittenberg & Lisa Prosser, 2011. "Ordering errors, objections and invariance in utility survey responses," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 225-241, July.
    2. Smeele, Nicholas V.R. & Chorus, Caspar G. & Schermer, Maartje H.N. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W., 2023. "Towards machine learning for moral choice analysis in health economics: A literature review and research agenda," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 326(C).
    3. Marek Kapera, 2022. "Learning own preferences through consumption," KAE Working Papers 2022-074, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of Economic Analysis.
    4. Baillon, Aurélien & Bleichrodt, Han & Granic, Georg D., 2022. "Incentives in surveys," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    5. Zhihua Li & Julia Müller & Peter P. Wakker & Tong V. Wang, 2018. "The Rich Domain of Ambiguity Explored," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(7), pages 3227-3240, July.
    6. Guillem López-Casasnovas & José Luis Pinto Prades, 2022. "QALY Maximization and the Social Optimum," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 242(3), pages 111-127, September.
    7. Adam Oliver, 2013. "Testing Procedural Invariance In The Context Of Health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(3), pages 272-288, March.
    8. Oliver, Adam, 2013. "Testing the rate of preference reversal in personal and social decision-making," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1250-1257.
    9. Thomas Kourouxous & Thomas Bauer, 2019. "Violations of dominance in decision-making," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 209-239, April.

    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. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades, 2006. "A New Type of Preference Reversal," Working Papers 06.18, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
    2. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades, 2007. "A new preference reversal in health utility measurement," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2007/15, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Birnbaum, Michael H., 2004. "Tests of rank-dependent utility and cumulative prospect theory in gambles represented by natural frequencies: Effects of format, event framing, and branch splitting," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 40-65, September.
    5. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2011. "Uncertainty Equivalents: Testing the Limits of the Independence Axiom," NBER Working Papers 17342, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Brice Corgnet & Roberto Hernán González, 2023. "On The Appeal Of Complexity," Working Papers 2312, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    7. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2022. "Chance theory: A separation of riskless and risky utility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(1), pages 1-32, August.
    8. Uri Gneezy & John A. List & George Wu, 2006. "The Uncertainty Effect: When a Risky Prospect is Valued Less than its Worst Possible Outcome," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1283-1309.
    9. Sudeep Bhatia & Graham Loomes & Daniel Read, 2021. "Establishing the laws of preferential choice behavior," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(6), pages 1324-1369, November.
    10. Ferdinand Vieider, 2016. "Certainty Preference, Random Choice, and Loss Aversion: A Comment on "Violence and Risk Preference: Experimental Evidence from Afghanistan"," Economics Discussion Papers em-dp2016-06, Department of Economics, University of Reading.
    11. Schmidt, Ulrich & Zank, Horst, 2013. "Chance theory: A separation of riskless and risky utility," Kiel Working Papers 1874, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    12. Daniel R. Burghart, 2020. "The two faces of independence: betweenness and homotheticity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 88(4), pages 567-593, May.
    13. Michael Callen & Mohammad Isaqzadeh & James D. Long & Charles Sprenger, 2014. "Violence and Risk Preference: Experimental Evidence from Afghanistan," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(1), pages 123-148, January.
    14. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2019. "What are axiomatizations good for?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 339-359, May.
    15. Vjollca Sadiraj, 2014. "Probabilistic risk attitudes and local risk aversion: a paradox," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(4), pages 443-454, December.
    16. Ronald Bosman & Frans Van Winden, 2010. "Global Risk, Investment and Emotions," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 77(307), pages 451-471, July.
    17. Han Bleichrodt, 2002. "A new explanation for the difference between time trade‐off utilities and standard gamble utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 447-456, July.
    18. Abdellaoui, Mohammed & Bleichrodt, Han, 2007. "Eliciting Gul's theory of disappointment aversion by the tradeoff method," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 631-645, December.
    19. Michael Birnbaum, 2005. "A Comparison of Five Models that Predict Violations of First-Order Stochastic Dominance in Risky Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 263-287, December.
    20. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Maria Abellan-Perpiñan & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades & Ildefonso Mendez-Martinez, 2007. "Resolving Inconsistencies in Utility Measurement Under Risk: Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 469-482, March.
    21. Fehr-Duda, Helga & Epper, Thomas & Bruhin, Adrian & Schubert, Renate, 2011. "Risk and rationality: The effects of mood and decision rules on probability weighting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 14-24.

    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:wly:hlthec:v:18:y:2009:i:6:p:713-726. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.