In search of a preferred preference elicitation method: A test of the internal consistency of choice and matching tasks

Attema, Arthur and Brouwer, Werner (2012): In search of a preferred preference elicitation method: A test of the internal consistency of choice and matching tasks.

Abstract

The numerous reports on preference reversals in preference elicitations pose a great challenge to empirical economics. Many studies have found that different procedures may generate substantially different preferences. However, little is known about whether one procedure is more susceptible to preference reversals than another. Therefore, taking the preference reversals as a robust behavioral pattern, guidelines are called for to provide directions regarding a preferred preference elicitation task. This paper puts forward a new test of the internal consistency of choice and matching tasks, based on “internal preference reversals”. We replicate the preference reversal phenomenon and find a significant higher consistency within choice tasks than within matching tasks.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: preference reversal; internal consistency; scale compatibility; loss aversion; choice; matching
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments > C91 - Laboratory, Individual Behavior; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B4 - Economic Methodology > B41 - Economic Methodology; I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I1 - Health > I10 - General

References

-Abdellaoui M, L'Haridon O, Paraschiv C. Experienced vs. Described Uncertainty: Do We Need Two Prospect Theory Specifications? Management Science 2011;57; 1879-1895.

-Anderson L, Mellor J. Are risk preferences stable? Comparing an experimental measure with a validated survey-based measure. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2009;39; 137-160.

-Arrow KJ, Solow RM, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H. Report of the NOAA Panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 1993;58; 4601-4614.

-Attema AE, Bleichrodt H, Wakker PP. A direct method for measuring discounting and QALYs more easily and reliably. Medical Decision Making forthcoming.

-Attema AE, Brouwer WBF. Can we fix it? Yes we can! But what? A new test of procedural invariance in TTO-measurement. Health Economics 2008;17; 877-885.

-Attema AE, Brouwer WBF. The correction of TTO-scores for utility curvature using a risk-free utility elicitation method. Journal of Health Economics 2009;28; 234-243.

-Attema AE, Brouwer WBF. The way that you do it? An elaborate test of procedural invariance of TTO, using a choice-based design. The European Journal of Health Economics forthcoming.

-Beattie J, Loomes GC. The Impact of Incentives Upon Risky Choice Experiments. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1997;14; 155-168.

-Bleichrodt H, Pinto JL. The validity of QALYs under non-expected utility. The Economic Journal 2005;115; 533-550.

-Bleichrodt H. A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities. Health Economics 2002;11; 447-456.

-Bleichrodt H, Gafni A. Time preference, the discounted utility model and health. Journal of Health Economics 1996;15; 49-66.

-Bleichrodt H, Pinto JL. Loss aversion and scale compatibility in two-attribute trade-offs. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 2002;46; 315-337.

-Bleichrodt H, Pinto JL, Abellán-Perpinán JM. A consistency test of the time trade-off. Journal of Health Economics 2003;22; 1037-1052.

-Borcherding K, Eppel T, von Winterfeldt D. Comparison of Weighting Judgments in Multiattribute Utility Measurement. Management Science 1991;37; 1603-1619.

-Bostic R, Herrnstein RJ, Luce RD. The effect on the preference-reversal phenomenon of using choice indifferences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 1990;13; 193-212.

-Butler DJ, Loomes GC. Imprecision as an account of the preference reversal phenomenon. American Economic Review 2007;97; 277-297.

-Camerer CF, Hogarth RM. The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1999;19; 7-42.

-Cubitt RP, Munro A, Starmer C. Testing explanations of preference reversal. Economic Journal 2004;114; 709-726.

-Delquié P. Inconsistent trade-offs between attributes: new evidence in preference assessment biases. Management Science 1993;39; 1382-1395.

-Delquié P. "Bi-Matching": A new preference assessment method to reduce compatibility effects. Management Science 1997;43; 640-658.

-Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care 1997;35; 1095-1108.

-Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. The time trade-off method: Results from a general population study. Health Economics 1996a;5; 141-154.

-Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. Journal of Health Economics 1996b;15; 209-231.

-Fishburn PC. SSB utility theory and decision-making under uncertainty. Mathematical Social Sciences 1984;8; 253-285.

-Fishburn PC. Nontransitive preference theory and the preference reversal phenomenon. Rivista Internazionale Di Scienze Economiche e Commerciali 1985;32; 39-50.

-Holt CA. Preference Reversals and the Independence Axiom. American Economic Review 1986;76; 508-515.

-Huber J, Ariely D, Fischer G. Expressing Preferences in a Principal-Agent Task: A Comparison of Choice, Rating, and Matching. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 2002;87; 66-90(25).

-Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH. Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem. Journal of Political Economy 1990;98 6; 1325-1348.

-Karni E, Safra Z. "Preference Reversal" and the Observability of Preferences by Experimental Methods. Econometrica 1987;55; 675-685.

-Knetsch JL. The Endowment Effect and Evidence of Nonreversible Indifference Curves. American Economic Review 1989;79; 1277-1284.

-Lamers LM, McDonnell J, Stalmeier PFM, Krabbe PFM, Busschbach JJV. The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. Health Economics 2006;15; 1121-1132.

-Lichtenstein S, Slovic P. Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1971;89; 46-55.

-Lindman HR. Inconsistent Preferences Among Gambles. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1971;89; 390-397.

-Loomes GC. Different experimental procedures for obtaining valuations of risky actions: Implications for utility theory. Theory and Decision 1988;25; 1-23.

-Loomes G, Starmer C, Sugden R. Preference Reversal: Information-Processing Effect or Rational Non-transitive Choice? Economic Journal 1989;99; 140-151.

-Loomes G, Sugden R. Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty. Economic Journal 1982;92; 805-824.

-Loomes G, Sugden R. A Rationale for Preference Reversal. American Economic Review 1983;73; 428-432.

-Maafi H. Preference Reversals Under Ambiguity. Management Science 2011;57; 2054-2066.

-Schmidt U, Hey JD. Are Preference Reversals Errors? An Experimental Investigation. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2004;29; 207-218.

-Seidl C. Preference Reversal. Journal of Economic Surveys 2002;16; 621-655.

-Stalmeier PFM, Wakker PP, Bezembinder TGG. Preference reversals: Violations of unidimensional procedure invariance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1997;23; 1196-1205.

-Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. Journal of Health Economics 1986;5; 1-30.

-Tversky A, Thaler RH. Anomalies: preference reversals. Journal of Economic Perspectives 1990;4; 201-211.

-Tversky A, Kahneman D. Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics 1991;106; 1039-1061.

-Tversky A, Kahneman D. Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1992;5; 297-323.

-Tversky A, Sattath S, Slovic P. Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological Review 1988;95; 371-384.

-Tversky A, Slovic P, Kahneman D. The Causes of Preference Reversal. American Economic Review 1990;80; 204-217.