IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/shf/wpaper/2005017.html

Testing models of stochastic choice in health state valuation data

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Dolan
  • Oyeyemi Oluboyede
  • Jennifer Roberts

    (Department of Economics, The University of Sheffield)

Abstract

Expected Utility (EU) theory is the standard economic model of individual preferences under uncertainty. However, observed violations of the axioms of EU have generated interest in the incorporation of a stochastic element into deterministic models of decision-making. Previous empirical investigation of the theories of stochastic choice has involved monetary gambles in risky conditions using convenience samples of students. The aim of this study is to test generalisations of these models in the context of eliciting the preferences of the general public over health states under conditions of certainty. Our findings lend support to the `white noise´ stochastic specification of Hey and Orme (1994) which indicates that the stronger the preferences of an individual, the less likely they are to make a mistake and attach a lower value to their truly preferred alternative. JEL Classification: D0 Key words: Stochastic preferences, utility assessment, expected utility theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Dolan & Oyeyemi Oluboyede & Jennifer Roberts, 2005. "Testing models of stochastic choice in health state valuation data," Working Papers 2005017, The University of Sheffield, Department of Economics, revised Nov 2005.
    • Handle: RePEc:shf:wpaper:2005017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.shef.ac.uk/content/1/c6/03/91/72/SERP2005017.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2005
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.shef.ac.uk/content/1/c6/03/91/72/SERP2005017.pdf
    File Function: Revised version, 2005
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John D. Hey & Chris Orme, 2018. "Investigating Generalizations Of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 3, pages 63-98, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    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. Goeree, Jacob K. & Holt, Charles A. & Palfrey, Thomas R., 2002. "Quantal Response Equilibrium and Overbidding in Private-Value Auctions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 247-272, May.
    2. Bocqueho, Geraldine & Jacquet, Florence & Reynaud, Arnaud, 2011. "Expected Utility or Prospect Theory Maximizers? Results from a Structural Model based on Field-experiment Data," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114257, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Luís Santos-Pinto & Adrian Bruhin & José Mata & Thomas Åstebro, 2015. "Detecting heterogeneous risk attitudes with mixed gambles," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 573-600, December.
    4. Chetan Dave & Catherine Eckel & Cathleen Johnson & Christian Rojas, 2010. "Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 219-243, December.
    5. Kemal Ozbek, 2024. "Expected utility, independence, and continuity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 97(1), pages 1-22, August.
    6. Veld, Chris & Veld-Merkoulova, Yulia V., 2008. "The risk perceptions of individual investors," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 226-252, April.
    7. Fidanoski, Filip & Johnson, Timothy, 2023. "A z-Tree implementation of the Dynamic Experiments for Estimating Preferences [DEEP] method," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 38(C).
    8. Stein T. Holden & Mesfin Tilahun, 2024. "Can Climate Shocks Make Vulnerable Subjects More Willing to Take Risks?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 87(4), pages 967-1007, April.
    9. 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.
    10. Ferdinand M. Vieider, 2018. "Violence and Risk Preference: Experimental Evidence from Afghanistan: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(8), pages 2366-2382, August.
    11. Amit Kothiyal & Vitalie Spinu & Peter Wakker, 2014. "An experimental test of prospect theory for predicting choice under ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 1-17, February.
    12. Seidl, C. & Traub, S., 1996. "Rational Choice and the Relevance of Irrelevant Alternatives," Other publications TiSEM 26452450-9ecd-45b4-bc45-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    13. Konstantina Mari, 2017. "Does the Stochastic Specification Matter?," Discussion Papers 17/05, Department of Economics, University of York.
    14. Pamela Jakiela & Owen Ozier, 2016. "Does Africa Need a Rotten Kin Theorem? Experimental Evidence from Village Economies," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 83(1), pages 231-268.
    15. Daniela Di Cagno & Arianna Galliera & Werner Güth & Francesca Marzo & Noemi Pace, 2017. "(Sub) Optimality and (non) optimal satisficing in risky decision experiments," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(2), pages 195-243, August.
    16. Page, Lionel & Savage, David A. & Torgler, Benno, 2014. "Variation in risk seeking behaviour following large losses: A natural experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 121-131.
    17. Nathaniel T. Wilcox, 2024. "Conditional independence in a binary choice experiment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 205-225, June.
    18. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    19. Holzmeister, Felix, 2017. "oTree: Ready-made apps for risk preference elicitation methods," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 33-38.
    20. Jonathan P. Beauchamp & Daniel J. Benjamin & Christopher F. Chabris & David I. Laibson, 2015. "Controlling for the Compromise Effect Debiases Estimates of Risk Preference Parameters," NBER Working Papers 21792, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D0 - Microeconomics - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:shf:wpaper:2005017. 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: Mike Crabtree The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Mike Crabtree to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/desheuk.html .

    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.