AI Article Synopsis
- The article examines classic preference reversal in health care decisions, highlighting that people's choices and valuations can lead to inconsistent preferences.
- In two studies, one without incentives and the other with incentives, respondents made choices affecting themselves and others, revealing systematic preference reversals in both scenarios.
- The tendency for preference reversal was notably higher when respondents were making decisions for others, attributed to increased risk aversion in social decision making compared to personal choices.
Article Abstract
Classic preference reversal, where choice and valuation procedures generate inconsistent preference orderings, has rarely been tested in hypothetical health care treatment scenarios. Two studies - the first non-incentivised and the second incentivised - are reported in this article. In both studies, respondents are asked to make decisions that affect themselves (a personal decision making frame) and those for whom they are responsible (a social decision making frame). The results show non-negligible and systematic rates of preference reversal in both frames, although these rates are slightly, but non-significantly, lower in the incentivised condition. Moreover, in both studies, the rate of predicted preference reversal was somewhat higher in the social than in the personal decision making frame, a finding that is explained by greater risk aversion when choosing treatment options for others than when choosing treatments for oneself.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2013.10.003 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!