Questionnaire-based estimates of health inequality aversion are potentially vulnerable to framing effects. This study tests for four framing effects and a sample selection effect related to framing in the broad sense of cognition and information processing: (1) small versus unrealistically large health inequality reductions; (2) population-level versus individual-level descriptions of inequality reductions; (3) concrete versus abstract scenarios; (4) online versus discussion mode of administration; and (5) “academic versus non-academic” sample. Twenty nine respondents participated in a discussion group meeting, and a separate convenience sample of 156 respondents completed an online questionnaire. In line with previous studies we found that between 20% and 61% of respondents in different conditions expressed extreme inequality aversion that violates monotonicity, and between 3% and 20% expressed zero inequality aversion. We found small but non-significant effects of (1), (2) and (4), and substantial and significant effects of (3) and (5): a higher proportion of respondents expressed zero health inequality aversion in the concrete scenario, and a lower proportion expressed extreme health inequality aversion in the academic sample despite expressing similar or more egalitarian social attitudes to the welfare state and income redistribution.
|Number of pages||20|
|Publication status||Published - 2014|
|Event||HESG meeting - Sheffield, United Kingdom|
Duration: 8 Jan 2014 → 10 Jan 2014
|Period||8/01/14 → 10/01/14|