In two experiments, participants had to choose between a sure and a risky option. The sure option was presented either in a gain or a loss frame. Need was defined as a minimum score the participants had to reach. Moreover, choices were made under two different time constraints and with three different levels of induced need to be reached within a fixed number of trials. The two experiments differed with respect to the specific amounts to win and the need levels. (...) The $$2 \times 2 \times 3$$2×2×3 design was a within-subject design. Data were evaluated on an overall and on a group level, the latter based on participants’ stated risk preference and on revealed preferences using cluster analysis across subjects. Overall, the results showed riskier behavior when the choice options were presented as losses as compared to gains and when the induced need was highest. Time limits enhanced the framing effect. (shrink)
We examine the role of need satisfaction in non-comparative justice ratings about endowments with goods. As normative approaches, we discuss utilitarianism, prioritarianism, and sufficientarianism. Using a vignette experiment, we show that a need context increases the prevalence of prioritarianistic and sufficientarianistic justice ratings, which leads to an ethically problematic sigmoid shape of the justice evaluation function.
The Eurotransplant Kidney Allocation System (ETKAS) emerged from the XCOMB model by Wujciak and Opelz (1993a,b), who applied computer simulation studies to create an allocation algorithm. The present study investigated how experts would allocate a donated organ to patients on the waiting list with respect to the five allocation factors proposed in the ETKAS (number of mismatches, mismatch probability, waiting time, distance, international exchange balance). The experts’ evaluations were compared to the ETKAS points as well as to factor weights established (...) in mandatory allocation guidelines which are based on the German law for organ allocation (Transplantationsgesetz). The investigation was carried out using a conjoint analysis. Overall, the results indicate a fairly high degree of agreement between the experts’ opinions and the existing allocation system ETKAS and even more so for the allocation guidelines, in particular, with respect to the factors Mismatches, Mismatch probability, and Waiting time. (shrink)