• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

如何揭示人们的偏好:比较多种价格列表风险 elicitation 方法的时间一致性和预测能力。 (注:“elicitation”此处可能是特定专业术语,可根据具体医学领域进一步准确翻译,比如“引出法”之类,这里保留英文以便结合语境准确理解)

How to reveal people's preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods.

作者信息

Csermely Tamás, Rabas Alexander

机构信息

University of Vienna, Doctoral School of Operations Management and Logistics, Oskar Morgenstern Platz 1, 1090 Vienna, Austria.

Vienna University of Economics and Business, Institute for Public Sector Economics, Vienna, Austria.

出版信息

J Risk Uncertain. 2016;53(2):107-136. doi: 10.1007/s11166-016-9247-6. Epub 2017 Feb 1.

DOI:10.1007/s11166-016-9247-6
PMID:28405057
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5366177/
Abstract

The question of how to measure and classify people's risk preferences is of substantial importance in the field of economics. Inspired by the multitude of ways used to elicit risk preferences, we conduct a holistic investigation of the most prevalent method, the multiple price list (MPL) and its derivations. In our experiment, we find that revealed preferences differ under various versions of MPLs as well as yield unstable results within a 30-minute time frame. We determine the most stable elicitation method with the highest forecast accuracy by using multiple measures of within-method consistency and by using behavior in two economically relevant games as benchmarks. A derivation of the well-known method by Holt and Laury (American Economic Review (5):1644-1655, 2002), where the highest payoff is varied instead of probabilities, emerges as the best MPL method in both dimensions. As we pinpoint each MPL characteristic's effect on the revealed preference and its consistency, our results have implications for preference elicitation procedures in general.

摘要

如何衡量和分类人们的风险偏好问题在经济学领域至关重要。受用于引出风险偏好的多种方式的启发,我们对最普遍的方法——多重价格列表(MPL)及其衍生方法进行了全面研究。在我们的实验中,我们发现,在MPL的不同版本下,显示偏好存在差异,并且在30分钟的时间范围内结果也不稳定。我们通过使用方法内一致性的多种度量,并以两个经济相关博弈中的行为作为基准,确定了预测准确性最高的最稳定引出方法。由霍尔特和劳里(《美国经济评论》(5):1644 - 1655,2002年)提出的著名方法的一种衍生方法,即改变最高收益而非概率,在这两个维度上均成为最佳的MPL方法。由于我们确定了每个MPL特征对显示偏好及其一致性的影响,我们的结果总体上对偏好引出程序具有启示意义。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/41ee/5366177/365ebc89a92b/11166_2016_9247_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/41ee/5366177/608b5a741ba8/11166_2016_9247_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/41ee/5366177/365ebc89a92b/11166_2016_9247_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/41ee/5366177/608b5a741ba8/11166_2016_9247_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/41ee/5366177/365ebc89a92b/11166_2016_9247_Fig2_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
How to reveal people's preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods.如何揭示人们的偏好:比较多种价格列表风险 elicitation 方法的时间一致性和预测能力。 (注:“elicitation”此处可能是特定专业术语,可根据具体医学领域进一步准确翻译,比如“引出法”之类,这里保留英文以便结合语境准确理解)
J Risk Uncertain. 2016;53(2):107-136. doi: 10.1007/s11166-016-9247-6. Epub 2017 Feb 1.
2
The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?再探风险引出难题:跨方法的(不)一致性?
Exp Econ. 2021;24(2):593-616. doi: 10.1007/s10683-020-09674-8. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
3
Trust me; I know what I am doing investigating the effect of choice list elicitation and domain-relevant training on preference reversals in decision making for others.相信我;在调查选择列表启发和领域相关培训对他人决策中偏好反转的影响方面,我知道自己在做什么。
Eur J Health Econ. 2021 Jul;22(5):679-697. doi: 10.1007/s10198-021-01283-3. Epub 2021 Mar 20.
4
Quantifying benefit-risk preferences for medical interventions: an overview of a growing empirical literature.量化医疗干预措施的获益-风险偏好:日益增长的实证文献概述。
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013 Aug;11(4):319-29. doi: 10.1007/s40258-013-0028-y.
5
The risk elicitation puzzle.风险 elicitation 难题。
Nat Hum Behav. 2017 Nov;1(11):803-809. doi: 10.1038/s41562-017-0219-x. Epub 2017 Oct 2.
6
Measuring and Controlling for the Compromise Effect When Estimating Risk Preference Parameters.在估计风险偏好参数时对折衷效应进行测量与控制。
Exp Econ. 2020 Dec;23(4):1069-1099. doi: 10.1007/s10683-019-09640-z. Epub 2019 Dec 23.
7
Eliciting preferences and respecting values: Why ask?引出偏好并尊重价值观:为何要询问?
Soc Sci Med. 2023 Mar;320:115711. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115711. Epub 2023 Jan 23.
8
Doctor-patient differences in risk and time preferences: A field experiment.医患在风险和时间偏好上的差异:一项实地实验。
J Health Econ. 2016 Dec;50:171-182. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2016.10.001. Epub 2016 Oct 19.
9
Data on risk preferences and risk literacy for a sample of German agricultural sciences students.德国农业科学专业学生样本的风险偏好和风险素养数据。
Data Brief. 2018 Apr 10;18:1267-1271. doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2018.04.016. eCollection 2018 Jun.
10
Context matters.背景很重要。
Exp Econ. 2018;21(4):723-756. doi: 10.1007/s10683-017-9546-z. Epub 2017 Oct 25.

引用本文的文献

1
Dynamic computational phenotyping of human cognition.人类认知的动态计算表型分析。
Nat Hum Behav. 2024 May;8(5):917-931. doi: 10.1038/s41562-024-01814-x. Epub 2024 Feb 8.
2
Eliciting risk preferences that predict risky health behavior: A comparison of two approaches.引出能预测危险健康行为的风险偏好:两种方法的比较。
Health Econ. 2022 May;31(5):836-858. doi: 10.1002/hec.4486. Epub 2022 Feb 22.
3
The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?再探风险引出难题:跨方法的(不)一致性?

本文引用的文献

1
Probability information in risk communication: a review of the research literature.风险沟通中的概率信息:研究文献综述
Risk Anal. 2009 Feb;29(2):267-87. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01137.x. Epub 2008 Nov 5.
2
Predicting health behaviors with an experimental measure of risk preference.用风险偏好的实验性测量来预测健康行为。
J Health Econ. 2008 Sep;27(5):1260-74. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2008.05.011. Epub 2008 Jun 7.
3
Explaining the characteristics of the power (CRRA) utility family.解释幂(常相对风险厌恶)效用族的特征。
Exp Econ. 2021;24(2):593-616. doi: 10.1007/s10683-020-09674-8. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
4
On the stability of risk and time preferences amid the COVID-19 pandemic.新冠疫情期间风险与时间偏好的稳定性
Exp Econ. 2022;25(3):759-794. doi: 10.1007/s10683-021-09727-6. Epub 2021 Aug 13.
Health Econ. 2008 Dec;17(12):1329-44. doi: 10.1002/hec.1331.
4
Risk preference instability across institutions: a dilemma.各机构间风险偏好的不稳定性:一个两难困境。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Mar 15;102(11):4209-14. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0500333102. Epub 2005 Mar 7.
5
A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities.对时间权衡效用与标准博弈效用差异的一种新解释。
Health Econ. 2002 Jul;11(5):447-56. doi: 10.1002/hec.688.
6
Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART).冒险行为测量方法的评估:气球模拟风险任务(BART)。
J Exp Psychol Appl. 2002 Jun;8(2):75-84. doi: 10.1037//1076-898x.8.2.75.
7
On the shape of the probability weighting function.论概率加权函数的形状。
Cogn Psychol. 1999 Feb;38(1):129-66. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1998.0710.