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

Research output: Contribution to conferencePaper

Author(s)

Department/unit(s)

Conference

ConferenceHESG meeting
CountryUnited Kingdom
CitySheffield
Conference date(s)8/01/1410/01/14

Publication details

DatePublished - 2014
Number of pages20
Original languageEnglish

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.

Discover related content

Find related publications, people, projects, datasets and more using interactive charts.

View graph of relations