Exploring the Reference Point in Prospect Theory: Gambles for Length of Life

Abstract

Attitude toward risk is an important factor determining patient preferences. Risk behavior has been shown to be strongly dependent on the perception of the outcome as either a gain or a loss. According to prospect theory, the reference point determines how an outcome is perceived. However, no theory on the location of the reference point exists, and for the health domain, there is no direct evidence for the location of the reference point. This article combines qualitative with quantitative data to provide evidence of the reference point in life-year certainty equivalent (CE) gambles and to explore the psychology behind the reference point. The authors argue that goals (aspirations) in life influence the reference point. While thinking aloud, 45 healthy respondents gave certainty equivalents for life-year CE gambles with long and short durations of survival. Contrary to suggestions from the literature, qualitative data argued that the offered certainty equivalent most frequently served as the reference point. Thus, respondents perceived life-year CE gambles as mixed. Framing of the question and goals set in life appeared to be important factors behind the psychology of the reference point. On the basis of the authors' quantitative and qualitative data, they argue that goals alter the perception of outcomes as described by prospect theory by influencing the reference point. This relationship is more apparent for the near future as opposed to the remote future, as goals are mostly set for the near future.

A measurement of decreasing impatience for health and money

“…Because most subjects were healthy, chronic back pain could have been perceived as a loss and not as neutral. However, empirical evidence suggests that the reference point or neutral level of health can be manipulated and even healthy subjects usually adopt a health state which is worse than their current health if instructed to do so (Bleichrodt and Pinto 2002;Attema et al 2013;van Osch et al 2006).…”

Allowing for heterogeneous decision rules in discrete choice models: an approach and four case studies

“…Kahnemann and Tversky, 1979;van Osch et al, 2006). This is in contrast with the standard RUM focus on absolute attribute sensitivity, which in essence equates to the reference point being equal to zero.…”

The Transient Nature of Utilities and Health Preferences

“…Qualitative methods have not been used much by researchers of utility elicitation problems. Their potential is demonstrated in the van Osch and others article 10 that used think-aloud methodology to explore how respondents set the reference point and compare options in a standard gamble task. Process tracing techniques 17 and/or post hoc interviews with respondents could help explain some of the between-and withinsubject variation in utilities.…”