Bleichrodt Han
iMTA/iBMG, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Health Econ. 2002 Jul;11(5):447-56. doi: 10.1002/hec.688.
This paper gives a new explanation for the systematic disparity between standard gamble (SG) utilities and time trade-off (TTO) utilities. The common explanation, which is based on expected utility, is that the disparity is caused by curvature of the utility function for duration. This explanation is, however, incomplete. People violate expected utility and these violations lead to biases in SG and TTO utilities. The paper analyzes the impact on SG and TTO utilities of three main reasons why people violate expected utility: probability weighting, loss aversion, and scale compatibility. In the SG, the combined effect of utility curvature, probability weighting, loss aversion, and scale compatibility is an upward bias. In the TTO these factors lead both to upward and to downward biases. This analysis can also explain the tentative empirical finding that the TTO better describes people's preferences for health than the SG.
本文对标准博弈(SG)效用与时间权衡(TTO)效用之间的系统性差异给出了一种新的解释。基于预期效用的常见解释是,这种差异是由持续时间效用函数的曲率引起的。然而,这种解释并不完整。人们违反预期效用,而这些违反行为会导致SG和TTO效用出现偏差。本文分析了人们违反预期效用的三个主要原因对SG和TTO效用的影响:概率加权、损失厌恶和尺度兼容性。在SG中,效用曲率、概率加权、损失厌恶和尺度兼容性的综合作用会产生向上的偏差。在TTO中,这些因素既会导致向上的偏差,也会导致向下的偏差。这种分析还可以解释一个初步的实证发现,即与SG相比,TTO能更好地描述人们对健康的偏好。