References
- Hershey JC, Schoemaker PJH. Probability versus certainty equivalence methods in utility measurement: are they equivalent? Manage. Sci.31, 1213–1231 (1985).
- Jansen SJT, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP et al. Patient expected utilities for cancer treatments: a study on the feasibility of a chained procedure for the standard gamble and the time trade-off. Med. Decis. Making18, 391–399 (1998).
- Johnson EJ, Schkade DA. Bias in utility assessments: further evidence and explanations. Manage. Sci.35, 406–424 (1989).
- Lindman HR. The Measurement of Utilities and Subjective Probabilities. University of Michigan, MI, USA. Dissertation (1965).
- Slovic P, Lichtenstein S. Relative importance of probabilities and payoffs in risk taking. J. Exp. Psychol.78, 1–18 (1968).
- Seidl C. Preference reversal. J. Econ Surv.16, 621–655 (2002).
- Lichtenstein S, Slovic P. Reversals of preferences between bids and choices in gambling decisions. J. Exp. Psychol.89, 46–55 (1971).
- Lindman HR. Inconsistent preferences among gambles. J. Exp. Psychol.89, 390–397 (1971).
- Grether DM, Plott CR. Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon. Am. Econ. Rev.69, 623–638 (1979).
- Pommerehne WW, Schneider F, Zweifel P. Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon: a re-examination. Am. Econ. Rev.72, 569–574 (1982).
- Reilly RJ. Preference reversal: further evidence and some suggested modifications in experimental design. Am. Econ. Rev.72, 576–584 (1982).
- Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice methods in health economics: moving forward. In: Advances in Health Economics. Scott A, Maynard A, Elliot R (Eds). John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK (2002).
- Donaldson C, Shackley P. Willingness to pay for health care. In: Advances in Health Economics. Scott A, Maynard A, Elliot R (Eds). John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK (2002).
- Gyldmark M, Morrison GC. Demand for health care in Denmark: results of a national sample survey using contingent valuation. Soc. Sci. Med.53, 1023–1036 (2001).
- Olsen JA. Aiding priority setting in health care: is there a role for the contingent valuation method? Health Economics6, 603–612 (1997).
- Olsen JA, Donaldson C. Helicopter, hearts, and hips: using willingness to pay to set priorities for public sector healthcare programmes. Soc. Sci. Med.46, 1–12 (1997).
- Shackley J P, Donaldson C, Olsen JA. Convergent validity of willingness to pay and person trade-off: results from the EuroWill surveys. Presented at: Third World Conference of the International Health Economics Association. York, England, UK, July 2001.
- Baron J, Maxwell NP. Cost of public goods affects willingness to pay for them. J. Behav. Decision Making9, 173–183 (1996).
- Shackley P, Donaldson C. Should we use willingness to pay to elicit community preferences for health care? New evidence from using a ‘marginal’ approach. J. Health Econ.21, 971–991 (2002).
- Donaldson C, Shackley P, Abdalla M. Using willingness to pay to value close substitutes: carrier screening for cystic fibrosis revisited. Health Econ.6, 145–159 (1997).
- Kahneman D, Knetsch JL. Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. J. Environ. Econ. Manage.22, 57–70 (1992).
- Stalmeier PFM, Chapman GB, de Boer AGEM et al. A fallacy of the multiplactive QALY model for low-quality weights in students and patients judging hypothetical health states. Int. J. Tech. Assess. Health Care17, 488–496 (2001).
- Oliver A. Further evidence of preference reversals: choice, valuation and ranking over distributions of life expectancy. J. Health Econ.25, 803–820 (2006).
- Bateman I, Day B, Loomes G, Orr S, Sugden R. Does a ranking procedure eliminate the usual violations of expected utility theory? Presented at: Meeting of the Preference Elicitation Group, London School of Economics, England, UK, 11 December 2002.
- Parducci A, Weddell D. The category effect with rating scales: number of categories, number of stimuli and method of presentation. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform.12(4), 496–516 (1986).
- The Construction of Preference. Lichtenstein S, Slovic P (Eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2006).