Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 3
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Callen, Michael Isaqzadeh, Mohammad Long, James D. and Sprenger, Charles 2014. Violence and Risk Preference: Experimental Evidence from Afghanistan†. American Economic Review, Vol. 104, Issue. 1, p. 123.


    Shavit, Tal Rosenboim, Mosi and Shani, Yaniv 2013. What is more important, the outcome or the probability?. Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 20, Issue. 2, p. 127.


    Stalmeier, P. F. M. and Verheijen, A. L. 2013. Maximal endurable time states and the standard gamble: more preference reversals. The European Journal of Health Economics, Vol. 14, Issue. 6, p. 971.


    ×

A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE LOTTERY EQUIVALENTS METHOD

  • ADAM OLIVER (a1)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266267107001368
  • Published online: 31 July 2007
Abstract

Numerous instruments have been developed to elicit numerical values that represent the strength of preference for different health states. However, relatively few studies have attempted to analyse the reasoning processes that people employ when they are asked to answer questions based on these elicitation methods. The lottery equivalents method is a preference elicitation instrument that has recently received some attention in the literature. This study attempts a qualitative analysis of the use of this instrument on a group of 25 relatively highly educated respondents. For each of three health states considered in the study, a substantial number of respondents refused to trade the chance of survival for a possible improvement in the health state. Therefore, many respondents violated an assumption that is necessary for the lottery equivalents instrument to generate cardinal health state values. These findings place a question mark against the usefulness of the lottery equivalents method, and add weight to the suspicion that ‘preferences’ are constructed according to how questions are framed.

Copyright
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Economics & Philosophy
  • ISSN: 0266-2671
  • EISSN: 1474-0028
  • URL: /core/journals/economics-and-philosophy
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×