Further evidence of preference reversals: Choice, valuation and ranking over distributions of life expectancy

Journal of Health Economics

Volumn 25, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 803-820

  Oliver, Adam ^a  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Choice; Life expectancy distributions; Preference reversals; Ranking; Valuation

Indexed keywords

LIFE EXPECTANCY; RANKING; VALUATION;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HEALTH; HUMAN; LIFE EXPECTANCY; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; TECHNIQUE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; LIFE EXPECTANCY; LONDON; MIDDLE AGED; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 33747166451     PISSN: 01676296     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2005.08.004     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Amiel, Y., Cowell, F.A., Davidovitz, L., Polovin, A., 2003. Preference reversals and the analysis of income distributions. Distributional Analysis Discussion Paper 66, STICERD, London School of Economics, London.
2. Bateman, I., Day, B., Loomes, G., Orr, S., Sugden, R., 2002. Does a ranking procedure eliminate the usual violations of expected utility theory? Paper presented at a meeting of the Preference Elicitation Group, London School of Economics, December 11th.
3. Black M. Some questions about Bayesian decision theory. In: Daboni A., Montesano A., and Lines M. (Eds). Recent Developments in the Foundations of Utility and Risk Theory (1986), Reidel, Dordrecht
4. Bleichrodt H., and Johannesson M. An experimental test of the theoretical foundation of rating-scale valuations. Medical Decision Making 17 2 (1997) 208-216
5. Donaldson C., and Shackley P. Willingness to pay for health care. In: Scott A., Maynard A., and Elliot R. (Eds). Advances in Health Economics (2002), John Wiley and Sons, Chichester
6. Hershey J.C., and Schoemaker P.J.H. Probability versus certainty equivalence methods in utility measurement: are they equivalent?. Management Science 31 10 (1985) 1213-1231
7. Lichtenstein S., and Slovic P. Reversals of preferences between bids and choices in gambling decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology 89 July (1971) 46-55
8. Lindman, H.R., 1965. The Measurement of Utilities and Subjective Probabilities. University of Michigan, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.
9. Loomes G.C., and Sugden R. Disappointment and dynamic consistency in choice under uncertainty. Review of Economic Studies 53 2 (1986) 271-282
10. Lopes L.L. The rhetoric of irrationality. Theory and Psychology 1 1 (1991) 65-82
11. Parducci A., and Weddell D. The category effect with rating scales: number of categories, number of stimuli and method of presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 12 4 (1986) 496-516
12. Pettit P. Decision theory and folk psychology. In: Bacharach M., and Hurley S. (Eds). Essays in the Foundations of Decision Theory (1991), Blackwell, Oxford
13. Pettit P. Construing Sen on commitment. Economics and Philosophy 21 1 (2005) 15-32
14. Pope R.E. Biases from omitted risk affects in standard gamble utilities. Journal of Health Economics 23 4 (2004) 695-735
15. Robinson A., Loomes G., and Jone-Lee M. Visual analog scales, standard gambles and relative risk aversion. Medical Decision Making 21 1 (2001) 17-27
16. Ryan M., and Gerard K. Using discrete choice methods in health economics: moving forward. In: Scott A., Maynard A., and Elliot R. (Eds). Advances in Health Economics (2002), John Wiley and Sons, Chichester
17. Seidl C. Preference reversal. Journal of Economic Surveys 16 5 (2002) 621-655
18. Sen A. Rationality and Freedom (2002), Harvard University Press, Cambridge and London
19. Slovic P., and Lichtenstein S. Relative importance of probabilities and payoffs in risk taking. Journal of Experimental Psychology 78 3 (1968) 1-18
20. Tversky A., Slovic P., and Kahneman D. The causes of preference reversals. American Economic Review 80 1 (1990) 204-217