The influence of the ratio bias phenomenon on the elicitation of health states utilities

  1. Pinto-Prades, José-Luis 2
  2. Martinez Pérez, Jorge-Eduardo 1
  3. AbellánPerpiñán, José-María 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Murcia
    info

    Universidad de Murcia

    Murcia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/03p3aeb86

  2. 2 Universidad de Navarra
    info

    Universidad de Navarra

    Pamplona, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02rxc7m23

Revista:
Judgment and Decision Making

ISSN: 1930-2975

Año de publicación: 2006

Volumen: 1

Número: 2

Páginas: 118-133

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.1017/S1930297500002333 GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Judgment and Decision Making

Resumen

This paper tests whether logically equivalent risk formats can lead to different health state utilities elicited by means of the traditional standard gamble (SG) method and a modified version of the method that we call “double lottery.” We compare utilities for health states elicited when probabilities are framed in terms of frequencies with respect to 100 people in the population (i.e., X out of 100 who follow a medical treatment will die) with SG utilities elicited for frequencies with respect to 1,000 people in the population (i.e., Y out of 1,000 who follow a medical treatment will die). We found that people accepted a lower risk of death when success and failure probabilities were framed as frequencies type “Y deaths out of 1,000” rather than as frequencies type “X deaths out of 100” and hence the utilities for health outcomes were higher when the denominator was 1000 than when it was 100. This framing effect, known as Ratio Bias, may have important consequences in resource allocation decisions.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Tversky, (1974), Science, 185, pp. 453
  • Nattinger, (2001), Medical Decision Making, 21, pp. 459, 10.1177/0272989X0102100604
  • National Breast Cancer Coalition (NBCC). (2002). The Mammography Screening Controversy: Questions and Answers. Retrieved March 10, 2006 from http://www.natlbcc.org/bin/index.asp?strid=498\&depid=9\&btnid=2.
  • Bleichrodt, H. Abellan-Perpiñan, J. M. Pinto, J. L. & Mendez-Martinez, I. (Forthcoming). Resolving inconsistencies in utility measurement under risk: tests of generalizations of expected utility. Management Science .
  • O’Connor, (1985), Medical Decision Making, 5, pp. 453, 10.1177/0272989X8500500408
  • Epstein, (1983), Psychological perspectives on the self, 2, pp. 219
  • Amsel, E. Close, J. Sadler, E. & Klaczynski, P. (2006). Awareness and irrationality: College students’ awareness of their irrational judgments on gambling tasks. Manuscript.
  • Epstein, (2003), Comprehensive handbook of psychology, 5, pp. 159, 10.1002/0471264385.wei0507
  • University of Michigan Health System (UMHS) (2004). Adult preventive health care: cancer screening. Ann Arbor (MI): University of Michigan Health System. Retrieved March 10, 2006 from http://cme.med.umich.edu/pdf/guideline/cancerscreening04.pdf
  • Edwards, (2001), Journal of Health Community, 6, pp. 61, 10.1080/10810730150501413
  • Hogarth, (2005), The Routines of Decision Making, pp. 67
  • Denes-Raj, (1994), Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, pp. 1083