Eliciting value judgements about health inequality aversion: testing for framing effects

Shehzad Ali; Richard Andrew Cookson; Aki Tsuchiya; Miqdad Asaria

Eliciting value judgements about health inequality aversion: testing for framing effects

Shehzad Ali, Richard Andrew Cookson, Aki Tsuchiya, Miqdad Asaria

Research output: Contribution to conference › Paper › peer-review

Abstract

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.

Original language	English
Pages	1
Number of pages	20
Publication status	Published - 2014
Event	HESG meeting - Sheffield, United Kingdom Duration: 8 Jan 2014 → 10 Jan 2014

Conference

Conference	HESG meeting
Country/Territory	United Kingdom
City	Sheffield
Period	8/01/14 → 10/01/14

Access to Document

http://www.shef.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.337589!/file/HESG_Sheffield_2014_Final_Programme_19.12.13.pdf

Cite this

@conference{22489777bec94395898b7bed096745d0,

title = "Eliciting value judgements about health inequality aversion: testing for framing effects",

abstract = "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.",

author = "Shehzad Ali and Cookson, {Richard Andrew} and Aki Tsuchiya and Miqdad Asaria",

year = "2014",

language = "English",

pages = "1",

note = "HESG meeting ; Conference date: 08-01-2014 Through 10-01-2014",

}

TY - CONF

T1 - Eliciting value judgements about health inequality aversion: testing for framing effects

AU - Ali, Shehzad

AU - Cookson, Richard Andrew

AU - Tsuchiya, Aki

AU - Asaria, Miqdad

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

M3 - Paper

SP - 1

T2 - HESG meeting

Y2 - 8 January 2014 through 10 January 2014

ER -