Testing the internal consistency of the standard gamble in 'success' and 'failure' frames

Social Science and Medicine

Volumn 58, Issue 11, 2004, Pages 2219-2229

  Oliver, Adam ^a  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Expected utility theory; Framing; Internal consistency; Loss aversion; Standard gamble

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING;

ADULT; ARTICLE; AVERSIVE BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; RISK; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; STANDARD; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TREATMENT FAILURE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; GAMBLING; HUMANS; KNOWLEDGE OF RESULTS (PSYCHOLOGY); LIFE EXPECTANCY; MALE; MORTALITY; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK-TAKING; TREATMENT FAILURE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 1642503939     PISSN: 02779536     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.08.024     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Bleichrodt, H. (1996). Applications of utility theory in the economic evaluation of health care. Ph.D. thesis. Rotterdam: Erasmus University.
2. Bleichrodt H. Probability weighting in choice under risk. An empirical test Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 23:2001;185-198.
3. Bleichrodt H., Pinto J.L. Loss aversion and scale compatibility in two-attribute trade-offs. Journal of Mathematical Psychology. 46:2002;315-337.
4. Bleichrodt H., Pinto J.L., Wakker P.P. Using descriptive findings of prospect theory to improve prescriptive applications of expected utility. Management Science. 47:2001;1498-1514.
5. Bleichrodt H., van Rijn J., Johannesson M. Probability weighting and utility curvature in QALY based decision making. Journal of Mathematical Psychology. 43:1999;238-260.
6. Camerer C., Ho T. Violations of the betweenness axiom and non-linearity in probability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 8:1994;167-196.
7. Chilton S., Spencer A. Empirical evidence of inconsistency in standard gamble choices under direct and indirect elicitation methods. Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics. 137:2001;65-86.
8. Enemark U. Alternatives to expected utility theory in clinical decision making. A review of prospect theory, regret theory and disappointment theory. Studies in health Economics 5:1994;Lund University, Lund.
9. Eraker S.E., Sox H.C. Assessment of patients' preferences for therapeutic outcomes. Medical Decision Making. 1:1981;29-39.
10. Fischhoff B. Predicting frames. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition. 9:1983;103-116.
11. Fishburn P.C., Kochenberger G.A. Two-piece von Neumann-Morgenstern utility functions. Decision Sciences. 10:1979;503-518.
12. Hershey J.C., Schoemaker P.J.H. Risk taking and problem context in the domain of losses. An expected utility analysis Journal of Risk and Insurance. 47:1980;111-132.
13. Johannesson M., Jönsson B., Karlsson G. Outcome measurement in economic evaluation. Health Economics. 5:1996;279-296.
14. Jones-Lee M.W., Loomes G., O'Reilly D., Philips P. The value of preventing non-fatal road injuries. Findings of a willingness-to-pay national sample survey working paper WP/SRC/2:1993;Transport Research Laboratory, London.
15. Jones-Lee M.W., Loomes G., Philips P.R. Valuing the prevention of non-fatal road injuries. Contingent valuation vs. standard gambles Oxford Economic Papers. 47:1995;676-695.
16. Kahneman D., Tversky A. Prospect theory. An analysis of decision under risk Econometrica. 47:1979;263-291.
17. Kahneman D., Tversky A. Choices, values and frames. American Psychologist. 39:1984;341-350.
18. Llewellyn-Thomas H., Sutherland H.J., Tibshirani R., Ciampi A., Till J.E., Boyd N.F. The measurement of patients' values in medicine. Medical Decision Making. 2:1982;449-462.
19. McCord M., de Neufville R. Lottery equivalents. Reduction of the certainty effect problem in utility assessment Management Science. 32:1986;56-60.
20. McNeil B.J., Pauker S.G., Sox H.C., Tversky A. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. New England Journal of Medicine. 306:1982;1259-1262.
21. Morrison, G. C. (1996). An assessment and comparison of selected methods for eliciting quality of life valuations from the public. Ph.D. thesis. York: University of York.
22. O'Connor A.M. Effects of framing and level of probability on patients' preferences for cancer chemotherapy. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 42:1989;119-126.
23. O'Connor A.M.C., Boyd N.F., Tritchler D.L., Kriukov Y., Sutherland H., Till J.E. Eliciting preferences for alternative cancer drug treatments. Medical Decision Making. 5:1985;453-463.
24. Oliver A. The internal consistency of the standard gamble. Tests after adjusting for prospect theory Journal of Health Economics. 24:2003;659-674.
25. Payne J.W., Laughhunn D.J., Crum R. Translation of gambles and aspiration level effects in risky choice behavior. Management Science. 26:1980;1039-1060.
26. Rutten-van Molken M.P.M.H., Bakker C.H., van Doorslaer E.K.A., van der Linden S. Methodological issues of patient utility measurement. Medical Care. 33:1995;922-937.
27. Spencer A.E. The implications of linking questions within the SG and TTO methods. Working paper no. 438. 2001;Queen Mary, University of London, London.
28. Torrance G.W. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. Journal of Health Economics. 5:1986;1-30.
29. Torrance G.W., Feeny D. Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 5:1989;559-575.
30. Tversky A., Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 211:1981;453-458.
31. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business. 59:1986;S251-S278.
32. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Loss aversion in riskless choice. A reference dependent model Quarterly Journal of Economics. 107:1991;1039-1061.
33. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory. Cumulative representation of uncertainty Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 5:1992;297-323.
34. Wu G., Gonzalez R. Curvature of the probability weighting function. Management Science. 42:1996;1676-1690.