3 results
Prospect theory, reference points, and health decisions
- Alan Schwartz, Julie Goldberg, Gordon Hazen
-
- Journal:
- Judgment and Decision Making / Volume 3 / Issue 2 / February 2008
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 January 2023, pp. 174-180
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
In preventative health decisions, such as the decision to undergo an invasive screening test or treatment, people may be deterred from selecting the test because its perceived disutility relative to not testing is greater than the utility associated with prevention of possible disease. The prospect theory editing operation, by which a decision maker’s reference point is determined, can have important effects on the disutility of the test. On the basis of the prospect theory value function, this paper develops two approaches to reducing disutility by directing the decision maker’s attention to either (actual) past or (expected) future losses that result in shifted reference points. After providing a graphical description of the approaches and a mathematical proof of the direction of their effect on judgment, we briefly illustrate the potential value of these approaches with examples from qualitative research on prostate cancer treatment decisions.
Contributors
-
- By Shamsuddin Akhtar, Greg Albert, Sidney Allison, Muhammad Anwar, Haruo Arita, Amanda Barker, Mary Hanna Bekhit, Jeanna Blitz, Tyson Bolinske, David Burbulys, Asokumar Buvanendran, Gregory Cain, Keith A. Candiotti, Daniel B. Carr, Derek Chalmers, John Charney, Rex Cheng, Roger Chou, Keun Sam Chung, Anna Clebone, Frederick Conlin, Susan Dabu-Bondoc, Tiffany Denepitiya-Balicki, Jeanette Derdemezi, Anahat Kaur Dhillon, Ho Dzung, Juan Jose Egas, Stephen M. Eskaros, Zhuang T. Fang, Claudia R. Fernandez Robles, Victor A. Filadora, Ellen Flanagan, Dan Froicu, Allison Gandey, Nehal Gatha, Boris Gelman, Christopher Gharibo, Muhammad K. Ghori, Brian Ginsberg, Michael E. Goldberg, Jeff Gudin, Thomas Halaszynski, Martin Hale, Dorothea Hall, Craig T. Hartrick, Justin Hata, Lars E. Helgeson, Joe C. Hong, Richard W. Hong, Balazs Horvath, Eric S. Hsu, Gabriel Jacobs, Jonathan S. Jahr, Rongjie Jaing, Inderjeet Singh Julka, Zeev N. Kain, Clinton Kakazu, Kianusch Kiai, Mary Keyes, Michael M. Kim, Peter G. Lacouture, Ryan Lanier, Vivian K. Lee, Mark J. Lema, Oscar A. de Leon-Casasola, Imanuel Lerman, Philip Levin, Steven Levin, JinLei Li, Eric C. Lin, Sharon Lin, David A. Lindley, Ana M. Lobo, Marisa Lomanto, Mirjana Lovrincevic, Brenda C. McClain, Tariq Malik, Jure Marijic, Joseph Marino, Laura Mechtler, Alan Miller, Carly Miller, Amit Mirchandani, Sukanya Mitra, Fleurise Montecillo, James M. Moore, Debra E. Morrison, Philip F. Morway, Carsten Nadjat-Haiem, Hamid Nourmand, Dana Oprea, Sunil J. Panchal, Edward J. Park, Kathleen Ji Park, Kellie Park, Parisa Partownavid, Akta Patel, Bijal Patel, Komal D. Patel, Neesa Patel, Swati Patel, Paul M. Peloso, Danielle Perret, Anthony DePlato, Marjorie Podraza Stiegler, Despina Psillides, Mamatha Punjala, Johan Raeder, Siamak Rahman, Aziz M. Razzuk, Maggy G. Riad, Kristin L. Richards, R. Todd Rinnier, Ian W. Rodger, Joseph Rosa, Abraham Rosenbaum, Alireza Sadoughi, Veena Salgar, Leslie Schechter, Michael Seneca, Yasser F. Shaheen, James H. Shull, Elizabeth Sinatra, Raymond S. Sinatra, Neil Singla, Neil Sinha, Denis V. Snegovskikh, Dmitri Souzdalnitski, Julie Sramcik, Zoreh Steffens, Alexander Timchenko, Vadim Tokhner, Marc C. Torjman, Co T. Truong, Nalini Vadivelu, Ashley Vaughn, Anjali Vira, Eugene R. Viscusi, Dajie Wang, Shu-ming Wang, J. Michael Watkins-Pitchford, Steven J. Weisman, Ira Whitten, Bryan S. Williams, Jeremy M. Wong, Thomas Wong, Christopher Wray, Yaw Wu, Anthony T. Yarussi, Laurie Yonemoto, Bita H. Zadeh, Jill Zafar, Martha Zegarra, Keren Ziv
- Edited by Raymond S. Sinatra, Jonathan S. Jahr, University of California, Los Angeles, School of Medicine, J. Michael Watkins-Pitchford
-
- Book:
- The Essence of Analgesia and Analgesics
- Published online:
- 06 December 2010
- Print publication:
- 14 October 2010, pp xi-xviii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Assessing farmer interest in participatory plant breeding: Who wants to work with scientists?
- Julie C. Dawson, Jessica R. Goldberger
-
- Journal:
- Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems / Volume 23 / Issue 3 / September 2008
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 30 June 2008, pp. 177-187
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Participatory research, particularly participatory plant breeding (PPB), can increase the relevance of public-sector research to the agricultural community. PPB has mostly been used in developing countries with resource-poor farmers, but there is increasing interest among farmers in developed countries who are dissatisfied with the performance of available varieties. In 2006, scientists associated with the winter and spring wheat breeding programs in the Department of Crop and Soil Sciences and the Department of Community and Rural Sociology at Washington State University (WSU) conducted a survey of members of the Washington Association of Wheat Growers. Through analysis of the survey results, we sought to understand (1) whether or not farmers want to work with scientists in PPB programs and (2) the determinants of PPB interest. Results indicated that 52% of Washington wheat growers were interested in working with WSU scientists in a participatory breeding program. Interested farmers tended to be younger and college educated with fewer years of farming experience. Moreover, PPB interest appeared to be related positively to farm size, the number of wheat varieties planted, use of and interest in alternative production and marketing practices (e.g., seed saving, organic agriculture), and prior experience with WSU. Based on this analysis and ongoing discussions with farmers, we hope to develop a participatory wheat breeding program where farmers are able to choose their level of involvement with the breeding process based on their interest and needs. This new program will increase the relevance of WSU's wheat breeding programs to farmers in the state and could serve as a model for other public agricultural research programs seeking to increase farmer involvement and, thereby, democratize agricultural research.