David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Economics and Philosophy 23 (2):185-204 (2007)
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. (Published Online July 31 2007).
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Harriet A. Stranahan (2005). Does Lottery Advertising Exploit Disadvantaged and Vulnerable Markets? Business Ethics Quarterly 15 (1):23-35.
Daniel M. Hausman, Why Not Just Ask? Preferences, “Empirical Ethics” and the Role of Ethical Reflection.
Thomas Kroedel (2012). The Lottery Paradox, Epistemic Justification and Permissibility. Analysis 72 (1):57-60.
Verna V. Gehring (1999). The American State Lottery. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 13 (2):223-238.
Barbara Goodwin (1992). Justice by Lottery. University of Chicago Press.
James Hawthorne & Luc Bovens (1999). The Preface, the Lottery, and the Logic of Belief. Mind 108 (430):241-264.
Kevin B. Korb (1992). The Collapse of Collective Defeat: Lessons From the Lottery Paradox. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:230-236.
Claudio López-Guerra (2010). The Enfranchisement Lottery. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 10 (2):1470594-10372206.
James Justus (2006). Loop Analysis and Qualitative Modeling: Limitations and Merits. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 21 (5):647-666.
James M. Stearns & Shaheen Borna (1995). The Ethics of Lottery Advertising: Issues and Evidence. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 14 (1):43 - 51.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads5 ( #505,417 of 1,796,170 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #468,527 of 1,796,170 )
How can I increase my downloads?