IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Patient Preferences and Treatment Thresholds under Diagnostic Risk: An Economic Laboratory Experiment

  • Mayrhofer, Thomas
  • Krieger, Miriam

We study risk-aversion and prudence in medical treatment decisions. In a laboratory experiment, we investigate the frequency and intensity of second- and third-order risk preferences, as well as the effect of the medical decision context. Risk preferences are assessed through treatment thresholds (the indifference point between not treating and treating). Under diagnostic risk, medical decision theory predicts lower treatment thresholds for risk-averse than for risk-neutral decision makers. Given a comorbidity risk in the sick state, prudent individuals have an even lower threshold. Our results demonstrate risk-averse and prudent behavior in medical decisions, which reduce the (average) treatment threshold by 41% relative to risk-neutrality (from 50.0% to 29.3%). Risk aversion accounts for 3/4 of this effect, prudence for 1/4. Medical decision framing does not affect risk aversion, but is associated with more and stronger prudent behavior. These findings can have consequences for diagnostic technologies and QALYs, and thus for clinical guidelines.

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.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association in its series Annual Conference 2012 (Goettingen): New Approaches and Challenges for the Labor Market of the 21st Century with number 62033.

in new window

Date of creation: 2012
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:zbw:vfsc12:62033
Contact details of provider: Web page:

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1991. "Does the Random-Lottery Incentive System Elicit True Preferences? An Experimental Investigation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(4), pages 971-78, September.
  2. L. Eeckhoudt & H. Schlesinger, 2006. "Putting risk in its proper place," Post-Print hal-00283170, HAL.
  3. repec:tpr:qjecon:v:118:y:2003:i:1:p:41-71 is not listed on IDEAS
  4. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
  5. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7656, David K. Levine.
  6. Heike Hennig-Schmidt & Reinhard Selten & Daniel Wiesen, 2011. "How Payment Systems Affect Physicians' Provision Behaviour – An Experimental Investigation," Bonn Econ Discussion Papers bgse03_2011, University of Bonn, Germany.
  7. Dohmen Thomas & Falk Armin & Huffman David & Sunde Uwe & Schupp Jürgen & Wagner Gert, 2009. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants and Behavioral Consequences," ROA Research Memorandum 007, Maastricht University, Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market (ROA).
  8. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
  9. Dynan, Karen E, 1993. "How Prudent Are Consumers?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(6), pages 1104-13, December.
  10. Peter Wakker & Daniel Deneffe, 1996. "Eliciting von Neumann-Morgenstern Utilities When Probabilities Are Distorted or Unknown," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(8), pages 1131-1150, August.
  11. John List, 2004. "Neoclassical theory versus prospect theory: Evidence from the marketplace," Framed Field Experiments 00174, The Field Experiments Website.
  12. L. Eeckhoudt & C. Gollier, 2005. "The impact of prudence on optimal prevention," Post-Print hal-00199781, HAL.
  13. Amiram Gafni & George W. Torrance, 1984. "Risk Attitude and Time Preference in Health," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(4), pages 440-451, April.
  14. Olivier L'Haridon & Mohammed Abdellaoui & A. Driouchi, 2011. "Risk aversion elicitation: reconciling tractability and bias minimization," Post-Print hal-00609543, HAL.
  15. John List, 2003. "Does market experience eliminate market anomalies?," Natural Field Experiments 00297, The Field Experiments Website.
  16. Eeckhoudt, L. & Lebrun, T.H. & Sailly, J.C., 1984. "Risk-Aversion and Physicians' Medical Decision-Making," Cahiers de recherche 8438, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
  17. Bleichrodt, Han & Crainich, David & Eeckhoudt, Louis, 2003. "The effect of comorbidities on treatment decisions," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 805-820, September.
  18. Eike B. Kroll & Judith N. Trarbach & Bodo Vogt, 2011. "Determining risk preferences for pain," FEMM Working Papers 110006, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
  19. Cary Deck & Harris Schlesinger, 2008. "Exploring Higher-Order Risk Effects," CESifo Working Paper Series 2487, CESifo Group Munich.
  20. Sebastian Ebert & Daniel Wiesen, 2011. "Testing for Prudence and Skewness Seeking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(7), pages 1334-1349, July.
  21. repec:rwi:repape:0287 is not listed on IDEAS
  22. Kimball, Miles S, 1990. "Precautionary Saving in the Small and in the Large," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(1), pages 53-73, January.
  23. Robin Cubitt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 1998. "On the Validity of the Random Lottery Incentive System," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 115-131, September.
  24. Karen E. Dynan, 1993. "How prudent are consumers?," Working Paper Series / Economic Activity Section 135, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
  25. Christophe Courbage & Béatrice Rey, 2006. "Prudence and optimal prevention for health risks," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(12), pages 1323-1327.
  26. Santos-Pinto, Luís & Astebro, Thomas & Mata, José, 2009. "Preference for Skew in Lotteries: Evidence from the Laboratory," MPRA Paper 17165, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  27. Charles N. Noussair & Stefan T. Trautmann & Gijs van de Kuilen, 2014. "Higher Order Risk Attitudes, Demographics, and Financial Decisions," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 81(1), pages 325-355.
  28. Gerald Richardson & Andrea Manca, 2004. "Calculation of quality adjusted life years in the published literature: a review of methodology and transparency," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(12), pages 1203-1210.
  29. Susan K. Laury, 2006. "Pay One or Pay All: Random Selection of One Choice for Payment," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2006-24, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:vfsc12:62033. 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: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.