The discrepancy between risky and riskless utilities: A matter of framing?

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 435-447

  Stalmeier, Peep F M ^a,b,c   Bezembinder, Thom G G ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

^b RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Decision making; Framing; Risk attitude; Risky and riskless utilities; Utility assessment

Indexed keywords

POISON;

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEATH; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MIGRAINE; NORMAL HUMAN; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PROBABILITY; RELIABILITY; REPRODUCIBILITY; RISK;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; MIGRAINE DISORDERS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PAIN MEASUREMENT; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 0032824459     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9901900412     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Hershey JC, Kunreuther HC, Schoemaker PJH. Sources of bias in assessment procedures for utility functions. Manage Sci. 1982;28:936-53.
2. McCord M, Neufville R. Fundamental deficiency of expected utility decision analysis. In: French S, Hartley R, Thomas LC, White DJ (eds). Multi-objective Decision Making. London, U.K.: Academic Press, 1983:279-306.
3. Hershey JC, Schoemaker PJH. Probability versus certainty equivalence methods in utility measurement: are they equivalent? Manage Sei. 1985;31:1213-31.
4. Machina MJ. "Expected utility" analysis without the independence axiom. Econometrica. 1982;50:277-323.
5. Wakker P, Stiggelbout A. Explaining distortions in utility elicitation through the rank dependent model for risky choices. Med Decis Making. 1995;15:180-6.
6. Tversky A, Slovic P, Kahneman D. The causes of preference reversal. The American Economic Review. 1990;80:204-17.
7. Birnbaum MH, Coffey G, Mellers BA, Weiss R. Utility measurement: configural-weight theory and the judge's point of view. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1992;18:331-46.
8. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decision and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211:453-58.
9. Tversky A, Sattath S, Slovic P. Contingent weighting in judgement and choice. Psychol Rev. 1988;95:371-84.
10. Stalmeier PFM, Wakker PP, Bezembinder TGG. Preference reversals: violations of unidimensional procedure invariance. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1997;23:1196-1205.
11. Krzysztofowicz R, Duckstein L. Assessment errors in multiattribute utility functions. Organ Behav Hum Perform. 1980; 26:326-48.
12. Keeney RL, Raiffa H. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. New York: Wiley, 1976.
13. Krzysztofowicz R, Koch JB. Estimation of cardinal utility based on a nonlinear theory. Ann Oper Res. 1989;19:181-204.
14. Birnbaum MH. Violations of monotonicity and contextual effects in choice-based certainty equivalents. Psychol Sci. 1992; 3:310-14.
15. Wakker P. Separating marginal utility and probabilistic risk aversion. Theory and Decision. 1994;36:1-44.
16. Barron FH, von Winterfeldt D, Fischer GW. Empirical and theoretical relationships between value and utility functions. Acta Psychol. 1984;56:233-44.
17. Currim IS, Sarin RK. A comparative evaluation of multiattribute consumer preference models. Manage Sci. 1984;30:543-61.
18. Keller LR. An empirical investigation of relative risk aversion. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. 1985; 4:475-82.
19. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision making under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47:263-91.
20. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertainty. 1992;5:297-323.
21. Tverky A, Fox CR. Weighing risk and uncertainty. Psychol Rev. 1995;102:269-83 [also see page 278, first column].
22. Slovic, P. The construction of preference. Am Psychologist. 1995;50:364-71.
23. Dyer JS, Sarin RK. Measurable multiattribute value functions. Oper Res. 1979;20:507-19.
24. Fishburn PC. Retrospective on the utility theory of von Neumann and Morgenstern. J Risk Uncertainty. 1989;2:127-58.
25. Payne JW, Laughhunn DJ, Crum R. Aspiration level effects in risky choice behavior. Manage Sci. 1981;27:953-9.
26. Llewellyn-Thomas H, Sutherland HJ, Tibshirani R, Ciampi A, Till JE, Boyd NF. The measurement of patients' values in medicine. Med Decis Making. 1982;2:449-62.
27. Fischer GW, Kamlet MS, Fienberg SE, Schkade D. Risk preferences for gains and losses in multiple objective decision making. Manage Sci. 1986;32:1065-86.
28. Fischer GW, Hawkins SA. Strategy compatibility, scale compatibility, and the prominence effect. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1993;19:580-97.
29. Slovic P, Griffin D, Tversky A. Compatibility effects in judgment and choice. In: Hogarth RM (ed). Insights in Decision Making: A Tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1990:5-27.
30. Delquié P. Inconsistent trade-offs between attributes: new evidence in preference assessment biases. Manage Sci. 1993; 39:1382-95.
31. Bostic R, Herrnstein RJ, Luce RD. The effect on the preference-reversal phenomenon of using choice indifferences. J. Economic Behavior and Organization. 1990;13:193-212.
32. Lenert LA, Cher DJ, Goldstein MK, Bergen MR, Garber A. The effect of search procedures on utility elicitations. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:76-83.
33. Press WH, Flannery BP, Teukolsky SA, Vettering WT. Numerical Recipes in Pascal. Cambridge, U.K.: University Press, 1989.
34. Fischer GW, Kamlet MS, Fienberg SE, Schkade D. Risk preferences for gains and losses in multiple objective decision making. Manage Sci. 1986;32:1065-86.
35. Dolan P, Sutton M. Mapping visual analogue scale health state valuations onto standard gamble and time trade-off values. Soc. Sci. Med. 1997;44:1519-1530.