We present results from a hypothetical framed field experiment assessing whether risk preferences significantly differ across the health and financial domains when they are elicited through the same multiple price list paired-lottery method. We consider a sample of 300 patients attending outpatient clinics in a university hospital in Athens during the Greek financial crisis. Risk preferences in finance were elicited using paired-lottery questions with hypothetical payments. The questions were adapted to the health domain by framing the lotteries as risky treatments in hypothetical health care scenarios. Using maximum likelihood methods, we estimated the degree of risk aversion, allowing for the estimates to be dependent on domain and individual characteristics. The subjects in our sample, who were exposed to both health and financial distress, tended to be less risk averse in the financial domain than in the health domain.
HarrisonJDYoungJMButowPSalkeldGSolomonMJ. Is it worth the risk? A systematic review of instruments that measure risk propensity for use in the health setting. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60(6):1385–96.
28.
HanochYJohnsonJGWilkeA. Domain specificity in experimental measures and participant recruitment an application to risk-taking behavior. Psychol Sci. 2006;17(4):300–4.
SzrekHChaoL-WRamlaganSPeltzerK. Predicting (un) healthy behavior: a comparison of risk-taking propensity measures. Judgm Decis Mak. 2012;7(6):716.
31.
WolbertERiedlA. Measuring time and risk preferences: reliability, stability, domain specificity. Maastricht University School of Business and Economics Discussion Paper 13-041, 2013:1–47.
32.
AttemaAEBrouwerWBl’HaridonO. Prospect theory in the health domain: a quantitative assessment. J Health Econ. 2013;32(6):1057–65.
33.
Warshawsky-LivneLA’wadFShkolnik-InbarJPliskinJS. A note on the relationship between health-risk attitude and monetary- risk attitude. Health Risk Soc. 2012;14(4):377–83.
34.
DaveDSafferH. Alcohol demand and risk preference. J Econ Psychol. 2008;29(6):810–31.
35.
AndersonLRMellorJM. Are risk preferences stable? Comparing an experimental measure with a validated survey-based measure. J Risk Uncertain. 2009;39(2):137–60.
36.
BleichrodtHPintoJL. A parameter-free elicitation of the probability weighting function in medical decision analysis. Manag Sci. 2000;46(11):1485–96.
37.
HoltCALaurySK. Risk aversion and incentive effects: new data without order effects. Am Econ Rev. 2005;95(3):902–4.
38.
HarrisonGW. Experimental evidence on alternative environmental valuation methods. Environ Resour Econ. 2006;34(1):125–62.
39.
HarrisonGW. Hypothetical bias over uncertain outcomes. In: ListJ, ed. Using Experimental Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics. Northampton (MA): Elgar; 2006:61–78.
40.
HarrisonGWRutströmEE. Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods. Handb Exp Econ Results. 2008;1:752–67.
41.
AndersonLRMellorJM. Predicting health behaviors with an experimental measure of risk preference. J Health Econ. 2008;27(5):1260–74.
42.
HarrisonGWLauMIRutströmEE. Individual discount rates and smoking: evidence from a field experiment in Denmark. J Health Econ. 2010;29(5):708–17.
43.
GalizziMMMiraldoM. Are you what you eat? Experimental evidence on risk preferences and health habits. Imperial College Business School Discussion Series. Available from: http://wwwf.imperial.ac.uk/.
44.
CharnessGGneezyUKuhnMA. Experimental methods: extra-laboratory experiments-extending the reach of experimental economics. J Econ Behav Organ. 2013;91:93–100.
45.
AndersenSHarrisonGWLauMIRutströmEE. Elicitation using multiple price list formats. Exp Econ. 2006;9(4):383–405.
46.
HarrisonGWRutströmEE. Risk aversion in the laboratory. In: IsaacRMNortonDA, eds. Risk Aversion in Experiments. Bingley (UK): Emerald, Research in Experimental Economics; 2008:41–196.
47.
AndersenSHarrisonGWLauMIRutströmEE. Eliciting risk and time preferences. Econometrica. 2008;76(3):583–618.
48.
AndersenSHarrisonGWLauMIRutströmEE. Behavioral econometrics for psychologists. J Econ Psychol. 2010;31(4):553–76.
49.
HarrisonGWListJAToweC. Naturally occurring preferences and exogenous laboratory experiments: a case study of risk aversion. Econometrica. 2007;75(2):433–58.
50.
RiddelM. Comparing risk preferences over financial and environmental lotteries. J Risk Uncertain. 2012;45(2):135–57.
PetmesidouMPavoliniEGuillénAM. South European healthcare systems under harsh austerity: a progress-regression mix?South Eur Soc Polit. 2014;19(3):331–52.
53.
EuroQol Group. EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208.
54.
DolanP. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095–108.
55.
AcquardoCConwayKGiroudetCMearI. Linguistic Validation Manual for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Instruments. Lyon: Mari Research Institute; 2004.
56.
GuilleminFBombardierCBeatonD. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(12):1417–32.
57.
AndersenSHarrisonGWLauMIRutströmEE. Behavioral econometrics for psychologists. J Econ Psychol. 2010;31(4):553–76.
58.
QuigginJ. A theory of anticipated utility. J Econ Behav Organ. 1982;3(4):323–43.
59.
AndersenSHarrisonGWHoleARLauMRutströmEE. Non-linear mixed logit. Theory Decis. 2012;73(1):77–96.
60.
KentikelenisAKaranikolosMPapanicolasIBasuSMcKeeMStucklerD. Health effects of financial crisis: omens of a Greek tragedy. Lancet. 2011;378(9801):1457–8.
61.
ParaskevisDNikolopoulosGFotiouA. Economic recession and emergence of an HIV-1 outbreak among drug injectors in Athens metropolitan area: a longitudinal study. PLoS One. 2013;8(11):e78941.
62.
CohnAEngelmannJFehrEMaréchalMA. Evidence for countercyclical risk aversion: an experiment with financial professionals. Am Econ Rev. 2015;105(2):860–85.
63.
GuisoLSapienzaPZingalesL. Time varying risk aversion. National Bureau of Economic Research. Available from: http://www.nber.org/papers/w19284.
64.
YoungAKarpinskiMTreleavenD. Differences in tolerance for health risk to the living donor among potential donors, recipients, and transplant professionals. Kidney Int. 2008;73(10):1159–66.
65.
BattalioRCKagelJHJiranyakulK. Testing between alternative models of choice under uncertainty: some initial results. J Risk Uncertain. 1990;3(1):25–50.
66.
BlackburnMHarrisonGWRutströmEE. Statistical bias functions and informative hypothetical surveys. Am J Agric Econ. 1994;76(5):1084–8.
67.
CummingsRGElliottSHarrisonGWMurphyJ. Are hypothetical referenda incentive compatible?J Polit Econ. 1997;105(3):609–21.
68.
CummingsRGHarrisonGWRutströmEE. Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: is the dichotomous choice approach incentive-compatible?Am Econ Rev. 1995;85(1):260–6.
69.
RobinsonALoomesGJones-LeeM. Visual analog scales, standard gambles, and relative risk aversion. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(1):17–27.
70.
VolppKGJohnLKTroxelABNortonLFassbenderJLoewensteinG. Financial incentive–based approaches for weight loss: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2008;300(22):2631–7.
71.
VolppKGAschDAGalvinRLoewensteinG. Redesigning employee health incentives: lessons from behavioral economics. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(5):388–90.
72.
DolanPGalizziMM. Because I’m worth it: a lab-field experiment on the spillover effects of incentives in health. Available from: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/60356/.
73.
DolanPGalizziMMNavarro-MartinezD. Paying people to eat or not to eat? Carryover effects of monetary incentives on eating behaviour. Soc Sci Med. 2015;133:153–8.
74.
BeyerARFasoloBde GraeffPAHillegeHL. Risk attitudes and personality traits predict perceptions of benefits and risks for medicinal products: a field study of European medical assessors. Value Health. 2015;18(1):91–9.
75.
BeyerARBannaeCostaCde GraeffPAHillegeHLFasoloBEichlerHG. Values among multiple sclerosis patients: application of a decision-analytic tool to the elicitation of preferences for treatment outcomes. Med Decis Making.In press.
76.
ChakravartySHarrisonGWHaruvyEERutströmEE. Are you risk averse over other people’s money?South Econ J. 2011;77(4):901–13.
77.
GalizziMMMiraldoMStavropoulouC. Doctor-patient differences in risk preferences, and their links to decision-making: a field experiment. Imperial College Business School Discussion Series. Available from: http://wwwf.imperial.ac.uk/business-school/.
78.
IoannouCASadehJ. Time preferences and risk aversion: tests on domain differences. Discussion Paper Series in Economics and Econometrics. Department of Economics University of Southampton. 2014:1–30.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
