The veil of experience: Do consumers prefer what they know best?

Health Economics

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 267-270

  Salkeld, G ^a   Ryan, M ^b   Short, L ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^c QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Colorectal cancer testing; Discrete choice experiment; Preferences; Veil of experience

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH SERVICE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESOURCE ALLOCATION;

ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; HUMANS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

EID: 0034060833     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(200004)9:3<267::AID-HEC511>3.0.CO;2-H     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Bradley M. User's Manual for the Speed Version 2.1 Stated Preference Experiment Editor and Designer. Hague Consulting Group: Hague, 1991.
2. Porter M, McIntyre S. What is, must be best: a research note on conservative or deferential responses to antenatal care provision. Soc Sci Med 1984; 19: 1197-1200.
3. Cartwright A. The Dignity of Labour: A Study of Childbearing and Induction. Tavistock: London, 1979; 114.
4. Ryan M, McIntosh E, Shackley P. Methodological issues in the application of conjoint analysis in health care. Health Econ Lett 1998; 7: 373-378.
5. Bate A, Ryan M. Examining patient preferences for junior doctors versus specialist nurses in the provision of rheumatology services: a discrete choice experiment. Health Economic Research Unit Discussion Paper 05/98, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, 1998.
6. Thaler R. Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. J Econ Behav Organ 1980; 1: 39-60.
7. Samuelson W, Zeckhauser R. Status quo bias in decision making. J Risk Uncert 1988; 1: 7-59.
8. Knetsch JL, Sinden JA. Willingness to pay and compensation demanded: experimental evidence of an unexpected disparity in measures of value. Q J Econ 1984; 99: 507-521.
9. Knetsch JL, Sinden JA. The persistence of evaluation disparities. Q J Econ 1987; 102: 691-695.
10. Knetsch JL. The endowment effect and evidence of non-reversible indifference curves. Am Econ Rev 1989; 79: 1277-1284.
11. Morrison GC. Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: some evidence of an endowment effect. Appl Econ 1997; 29: 411-417.
12. Morrison GC. Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept: comment. Am Econ Rev 1997; 87: 236-240.
13. Bell D. Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Oper Res 1982; 30: 961-981.
14. Bell D. Disappointment in decision making under uncertainty. Oper Res 1986; 33: 1-27.
15. Loomes G, Sugden R. Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Econ J 1982; 92: 805-824.
16. Loomes G, Sugden R. Disappointment and dynamic consistency in choice under uncertainty. Rev Econ Studies 1985; 53: 271-282.
17. Ryan M. Valuing psychological factors in the provision of assisted reproductive techniques using the economic instrument of willingness to pay. J Econ Psychol 1988; 19: 179-204.
18. Smith RD. Is regret theory an alternative basis for estimating the value of healthcare interventions? Health Policy 1996; 37: 105-115.
19. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision making under risk. Econometrica 1979; 47: 263-291.