A penny for your thoughts: Inducing truth-telling in stated preference elicitation

2010 ◽  
Vol 106 (2) ◽  
pp. 140-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lint Barrage ◽  
Min Sok Lee
Keyword(s):  
Stated Preference ◽  
Preference Elicitation ◽  
Truth Telling

scholarly journals Are non-monetary payment modes more uncertain for stated preference elicitation in developing countries?

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. 73-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Godwin K. Vondolia ◽  
Ståle Navrud
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Stated Preference ◽  
Preference Elicitation

scholarly journals Foundations of Stated Preference Elicitation: Consumer Behavior and Choice-based Conjoint Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 1-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moshe Ben-Akiva ◽  
Daniel McFadden ◽  
Kenneth Train
Keyword(s):  
Consumer Behavior ◽  
Conjoint Analysis ◽  
Stated Preference ◽  
Preference Elicitation

scholarly journals Behavioral Anomalies in Contingent Values and Actual Choices

2016 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 246-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory L. Poe
Keyword(s):  
Contingent Valuation ◽  
Stated Preference ◽  
Contingent Valuation Method ◽  
Preference Elicitation ◽  
Stated Preferences ◽  
Stated Preference Methods ◽  
Elicitation Methods ◽  
Valuation Method ◽  
Growing Body

A growing body of literature demonstrates that many behavioral anomalies observed in stated-preference elicitation methods such as the contingent valuation method are also observed in actual choices and vice versa. This presentation furthers the argument that such parallel behaviors should be viewed as a strength of stated-preference methods. Three well-known anomalies observed in both stated preferences and actual choices are first reviewed to lay the foundation for this argument. A number of lesser-known anomalies are then presented to demonstrate the wider prevalence of parallel anomalies in stated preferences and actual choices.

scholarly journals A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches

2011 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 539-559 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard T. Carson ◽  
Jordan J. Louviere
Keyword(s):  
Stated Preference ◽  
Preference Elicitation

scholarly journals Quality-adjusted life year weights and treatment bias: Theory and evidence from cognitive interviews

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 205031211985698 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan N Patenaude ◽  
Till Bärnighausen
Keyword(s):  
Standard Gamble ◽  
Stated Preference ◽  
Preference Elicitation ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Health State ◽  
Cognitive Interviews ◽  
Thought Processes ◽  
Health States ◽  
Treatment Bias ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Objectives: The purpose of this research is to understand the thought processes that underpin responses to stated preference approaches for eliciting quality of life, in particular the standard gamble. Methods: We utilize standard gamble preference elicitation survey techniques to elicit quality-adjusted life year weights for two reduced health states: chronic severe depression and total blindness. After the survey, we conduct open-ended qualitative interviews with respondents to determine their thought processes while taking the surveys and to shed light on what their quality-adjusted life year weight is capturing. Survey responses were coded and analyzed for themes in NVivo, the results of which were then formalized in the terminology of decision sciences. Results: The qualitative results of the cognitive interviews present systematic evidence for a type of cognitive bias present in standard gamble quality-adjusted life year weight elicitation, which has not been previously highlighted and which we call treatment bias. We define this treatment bias as the consideration of salient treatment alternatives correlated with a reduced health state, when these alternatives are not explicitly posed in the question. Our formalization of this cognitive behavior demonstrates that treatment bias will always bias the elicited health state utility of treating the illness in question downward. Conclusion: The treatment bias highlighted in this study has implications for economic evaluation when comparing treatment for illnesses where alternative treatments are widely publicized versus those that are not. For example, comparing the effectiveness of treating depression versus arthritis may be biased against depression if advertisements for anti-depressants are more widely viewed by survey respondents than advertisements for arthritis treatments. We propose a statement to be imbedded in all questionnaires regarding stated preference elicitation of quality-adjusted life year weights in order to correct for this bias in future stated preference surveys.

scholarly journals Eliciting Preferences in Dentistry with Multiattribute Stated Preference Methods: A Systematic Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 326-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Barber ◽  
S. Pavitt ◽  
B. Khambay ◽  
H. Bekker ◽  
D. Meads
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Oral Health ◽  
Service Delivery ◽  
Stated Preference ◽  
Preference Elicitation ◽  
Health States ◽  
Stated Preference Methods ◽  
The Public ◽  
Elicitation Methods ◽  
Stated Preference Experiments

Background: Preference experiments are used to understand how patients and stakeholders value aspects of health care. These methods are gaining popularity in dentistry, but quality and breadth of use have not been evaluated. Objectives: To describe multiattribute stated preference experiment use in dentistry through illustration and critique of existing studies. Data Sources: Systematic literature search of PubMed, Econlit and Ovid for Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, PsychARTICLES, and All EBM Reviews, as well as gray literature. Study Eligibility: Multiattribute stated preference experiments eliciting preferences for dental service delivery, treatments, and oral health states from the perspective of patients, the public, and dental professionals. Outcomes of interest were preference weights and marginal rates of substitution. Study selection was independently performed by 2 reviewers. Appraisal: Ten-point checklist published by the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research was used for quality assessment. Synthesis: Descriptive analysis. Results: Searches identified 12 records published between 1999 and 2015, mostly in nondental academic journals. Studies were undertaken in high-income countries in Europe and the United States. The studies aimed to elicit preference for service delivery, treatment, or oral health states from the perspective of the patients, dentists, or the public via discrete choice experiment methods. The quality scores for the studies ranged from 53% to 100%. Limitations: A detailed description and critique of stated preference methods are provided, but it was not possible to provide synthesized preference data. Conclusions: Multiattribute stated preference experiments are increasingly popular, but understanding the methods and outputs is essential for designing and interpreting preference studies to improve patient care. Patient preferences highlight important considerations for decision making during treatment planning. Valuation of health states and estimation of willingness-to-pay are important for resource planning and allocation and economic evaluation. Preference estimates and relative value of attributes for interventions and service delivery inform development and selection of treatments and services (PROSPERO 21.3.17: CRD42017059859). Knowledge Transfer Statement: Understanding patient, professional, and public preferences is fundamental for evidence-based decision making and treatment delivery. Preference elicitation methods can be used to estimate the value given to health states, service delivery, individual treatments, and health outcomes. By describing and appraising the methodology and application of multiattribute stated preference experiments in dentistry, this review provides an essential first step to wider use of well-designed, high-quality preference elicitation methods.

Risk Preference Elicitation and the Role of Personality and Intelligence

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tanja F. Blackstone ◽  
Jerry C. Crabb ◽  
Frederick L. Oswald
Keyword(s):  
Risk Preference ◽  
Preference Elicitation

Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth-Telling

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie John ◽  
George Loewenstein ◽  
Drazen Prelec
Keyword(s):  
Truth Telling ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices

Using African Truth and Reconciliation Commission documentation for truth telling and reconciliation

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Proscovia Svärd
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Truth And Reconciliation Commission ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Truth Telling ◽  
Reconciliation Commission ◽  
Truth And Reconciliation ◽  
Post Conflict ◽  
Truth And Reconciliation Commissions ◽  
Reconciliation Process

Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (TRCs) are established to document violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in post-conflict societies. The intent is to excavate the truth to avoid political speculations and create an understanding of the nature of the conflict. The documentation hence results in a common narrative which aims to facilitate reconciliation to avoid regression to conflict. TRCs therefore do a tremendous job and create compound documentation that includes written statements, interviews, live public testimonies of witnesses and they also publish final reports based on the accumulated materials. At the end of their mission, TRCs recommend the optimal use of their documentation since it is of paramount importance to the reconciliation process. Despite this ambition, the TRCs’ documentation is often politicized and out of reach for the victims and the post-conflict societies at large. The TRCs’ documentation is instead poorly diffused into the post conflict societies and their findings are not effectively disseminated and used.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document