Omission or Paternalism Peter P. Wakker (& Bleichrodt & Pinto & Abdellaoui); Seminar at University of Chicago, School of Business, June 23, 2004 1.Hypothetical.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
A small taste of inferential statistics
Advertisements

S3 Useful Expressions.
 Make better decisions Usually business decisions  Build theory Understand the world better.
Puu Research Project on Renewable Materials Monika Österberg.
Is It Rational to Vote? Political scientists study all aspects of voting behavior. The most interesting question, of course, is who votes for whom and.
Effect Size and Power.
4 Why Should we Believe Politicians? Lupia and McCubbins – The Democratic Dilemma GV917.
CHAPTER 14 Utility Axioms Paradoxes & Implications.
Honors Eng. 9 Unit 3 Lecture Notes
The Trouble with Normal ISD II – Endocrinology Jan. 22, 2002 Andrew Latus.
Certainty Equivalent and Stochastic Preferences June 2006 FUR 2006, Rome Pavlo Blavatskyy Wolfgang Köhler IEW, University of Zürich.
DECO3008 Design Computing Preparatory Honours Research KCDCC Mike Rosenman Rm 279
Language of Meetings PPTX What needs to be said?.
Tutorial on Risk and Uncertainty Peter P. Wakker Part 1: Introduction into Prospect Theory. Part 2: Using Prospect Theory to Better Describe and Prescribe.
Making Descriptive Use of Prospect Theory to Improve the Prescriptive Use of Expected Utility Peter P. Wakker (& Bleichrodt & Pinto); Oct. 3,
Standard-Gamble Utilities for Policy Decisions? Peter P. Wakker ( & Abdellaoui & Barrios; & Bleichrodt & Pinto) p? 1p1p  Perf. Health artificial speech.
Role and Place of Statistical Data Analysis and very simple applications Simplified diagram of a scientific research When you know the system: Estimation.
Using Descriptive Decision Theories such as Prospect Theory to Improve Prescriptive Decision Theories such as Expected Utility; the Dilemma of Omission.
Training Math Tutors To Tutor Developmental Math Students
Determining the Size of
Test Taking Tips How to help yourself with multiple choice and short answer questions for reading selections A. Caldwell.
thinking hats Six of Prepared by Eman A. Al Abdullah ©
Using effective display (and sales) techniques to increase your success here at the SMART Show We know shows are a big investment of time and money… Let’s.
Mixed-level English classrooms What my paper is about: Basically my paper is about confirming with my research that the use of technology in the classroom.
Analysis of Variance. ANOVA Probably the most popular analysis in psychology Why? Ease of implementation Allows for analysis of several groups at once.
Extensive Reading Research in Action
Testing Hypotheses Tuesday, October 28. Objectives: Understand the logic of hypothesis testing and following related concepts Sidedness of a test (left-,
DR. AHMAD SHAHRUL NIZAM ISHA
TALKING TO THE PATIENT AND FAMILY!. While talking to the patient and their family… *Sit down and make eye contact with the patient and their family.
CORRELATION & REGRESSION
EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE Health economics Ross Lawrenson.
1 The Methods of Biology Chapter Scientific Methods.
Health State Unable to perform some tasks at home and/or at work Able to perform all self care activities (eating, bathing, dressing) albeit with some.
Methodologies. The Method section is very important because it tells your Research Committee how you plan to tackle your research problem. Chapter 3 Methodologies.
Marion Degenhardt University of Education, Freiburg Burg Bodenstein March 3rd 2004 Presentation skills How to prepare and give a scientific talk.
Ms. Carmelitano RESEARCH METHODS EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES.
Psy B07 Chapter 4Slide 1 SAMPLING DISTRIBUTIONS AND HYPOTHESIS TESTING.
New Views on Risk Attitudes Peter P. Wakker Economics University of Amsterdam € 100 € 0€ 0 ½ ½ or € 50 for sure What would you rather have? Such gambles.
 Remember, it is important that you should not believe everything you read.  Moreover, you should be able to reject or accept information based on the.
Styles of Leadership LET II. Introduction Leadership styles are the pattern of behaviors that one uses to influence others. You can influence others in.
We came up with the general rule for expanding binomials, in particular squaring the sum and difference of two terms:- (a + b)²= a²+ 2ab + b² and (a –
Experiments on Risk Taking and Evaluation Periods Misread as Evidence of Myopic Loss Aversion Ganna Pogrebna June 30, 2007 Experiments on Risk Taking and.
MENTORING ACCORDING TO THE PRACTICE OF CENTRAS Constantza Mamaia 2- 3 June 2011.
CHAPTER 12 Descriptive, Program Evaluation, and Advanced Methods.
Unit 3: Credibility of Health Claims. Credibility of health claims How do you know what to believe? What makes information reliable? Can you really lose.
8 Strategies for the Multiple Choice Portion of the AP Literature and Composition Exam.
DO NOW Write about a time when someone judged you based on what you look like instead of how you are.
Slide 2 Refer students to the slide. Call their attention to the question on the slide. Elicit if it is to answer about appearance or personality.
QM Spring 2002 Business Statistics Probability Distributions.
Manipulating the Quota in Weighted Voting Games (M. Zuckerman, P. Faliszewski, Y. Bachrach, and E. Elkind) ‏ Presented by: Sen Li Software Technologies.
English Language Services
Stats 845 Applied Statistics. This Course will cover: 1.Regression –Non Linear Regression –Multiple Regression 2.Analysis of Variance and Experimental.
Welcome to MM570 Psychological Statistics
Research Design Week 6 Part February 2011 PPAL 6200.
6 Steps for Resolving Conflicts STEP 1. Begin the Process Calmly approach the person you are having the conflict with, and explain to them that you have.
LO: I will know about the Hedonic Calculus Hmk: Do some biographical work on John Stuart Mill Starter: Using your homework, what did you find out about.
Positive Behavior Supports 201 Developing a Vision.
Title of your BIP Business Improvement Project presented to: SUIC & UPVD as partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degrees of MBA in Hotel and.
RESPONDING TO RULES HOW TO: MAKE COMPLAINTS TAKE “NO” FOR AN ANSWER DISAGREE APPROPRIATELY CHANGE RULES.
Marshall University School of Medicine Department of Biochemistry and Microbiology BMS 617 Lecture 6 –Multiple hypothesis testing Marshall University Genomics.
Experimental Psychology PSY 433 Chapter 5 Research Reports.
1 BAMS 517 – 2011 Decision Analysis -IV Utility Failures and Prospect Theory Martin L. Puterman UBC Sauder School of Business Winter Term
On Probabilities in Personalised Medicine: ‘The Problem of Untestable Treatments’ Prof. Darrell P. Rowbottom Philosophy (Head), Lingnan University
Welcome to Introduction to Psychology! Let’s share a bit about where we are all from…
Children’s and social worker’s narratives about children becoming summoned to and visiting Barnahus including what happens afterwards NFBO Stockholm.
Preference Assessment 1 Measuring Utilities Directly
Type your project title here Your name Your teacher’s name Your school
Chapter 7: Sampling Distributions
In this chapter Be able to outline the purpose and distinct focus of management research; • Be able to place your research project on a basic-applied.
Presentation transcript:

Omission or Paternalism Peter P. Wakker (& Bleichrodt & Pinto & Abdellaoui); Seminar at University of Chicago, School of Business, June 23, Hypothetical example with inconsistencies in decisions. Correct for them at all? Ethical complications; paternalism … 2.My proposal in the example will deliberately deviate from the observations … Sin of death in experimental work such as psychology … ??? 3.A typical example of an application of decision theory in the health domain today; based on expected utility. 4.Corrections for violations of expected utility, based on prospect theory. Don’t forget to make this invisible. Explain a lot in words about medical decision making and EU. I skipped this in Chicago, Jun’04, and people felt mostly that this whole measurement procedure is silly. Say that at each step I lose more of the audience. (a) EU-Stage: those working normatively who do not consider EU to be normative. (b) Paternalism-stage: Those who do not want to be paternalistic. Here I lose all psychologists. (c) Prospect-theory-stage. Those who prefer other nonEU theories than normative. Point is, there is no easy way to do applied work You always get dirty hands. It is easy to criticize everything stated here, but not easy to give alternatives. Say that at each step I lose more of the audience. (a) EU-Stage: those working normatively who do not consider EU to be normative. (b) Paternalism-stage: Those who do not want to be paternalistic. Here I lose all psychologists. (c) Prospect-theory-stage. Those who prefer other nonEU theories than normative. Point is, there is no easy way to do applied work You always get dirty hands. It is easy to criticize everything stated here, but not easy to give alternatives.

2 Now comes a hypothetical example to illustrate inconsistencies, and difficulty of making decisions. It is not important in the example whether or not you consider expected utility to be normative. All critical aspects concern more basic points here.

Treatment decision to be taken for your patient (impaired) health state ("not treat") ortreat: treatment probability Your patient is now unconscious. You must decide: Treat or not treat. Depends on - goodness of health state relative to - treatment probability. 3 Give Handout 0 Make yellow comments invisible. ALT-View-O Make yellow comments invisible. ALT-View-O

Give Handout 1. Background info on similar patients Before, similar cases were observed. 4 “quality-of-life” For them, qol-probability was elicited, as follows.

5 Elicitation of qol-probability: The following were presented to each patient. - A rich set of health states, containing the above one; - A rich set of probabilities (all multiples of 0.01). For each health state, each patient was asked: health state p 1 – p1 – p ~ qol- probability For which probability p are they equivalent? The answer is the qol-probability. Is index of quality of the health state. High p => high quality => not treat.

6 health state ~ qol- probability Question 1 to the audience: Would you now treat or not-treat your patient? (Hint: Compare qol-probability = 0.91 to treatment probability = 0.90.) Average, median, and modus qol-probability: Do or do not show hint immediately, depending on audience.

7 Now suppose something more. Give handout 2. There is also a new elicitation of qol-probability: The following were also presented to each patient. A rich set of health states, containing the above one; A rich set of probabilities (all multiples of 0.01). For each probability p, each patient was asked: health state p 1 – p1 – p ~ For which health state are they equivalent? Such measurements are done for all p. In each case, p is called the new qol-probability of the corresponding health state.

8 health state ~ new qol- probability Question 2 to the audience: What would you do, treat or not treat, for the one patient now considered? For the health state of your patient, you expect new qol probability = 0.91 on average. However, data reveal great inconsistencies: p = 0.85 results as new qol-probability, as average, median, and modus, of the 10,000 patients. Repeat that the matching was done here for the health state, I.e., for p = 0.85 given, the matching health state was the one now relevant.

9 Now suppose something more. Handout 3. For your one patient, you also observed the (old) qol- probability (“for which probability … equivalent?“). It was 0.91, as for most others of the 10,000. health state ~ qol- probability No more time for new qol-probability measurement. Unfortunately, the patient became unconscious! Question 3 to the audience: What would you do now, treat or not treat, for the one patient now considered? For the 10,000 patients, the data are bad (inconsistencies). Not for your one patient; there you have no inconsistency.

My opinion: Treat the patient. Goes against the elicited opinion. However, elicitation is biased (see 10,000 prior cases). 10

11 Now suppose something less. Handout 4. For your one patient, you observed the (old) qol- probability (“for which probability … equivalent?“). It was 0.91, as for most others. health state ~ qol- probability No new ql-probability measurement; patient unconscious. Now no data on previous cases. Instead, use your knowledge of decision theory. Question 4 to the audience: What would you do now, treat or not treat, for the one patient now considered? Use knowledge of decision theory: only for specialized audiences.

I would still treat, based on the literature on biases. Moral of the story: We have to accept the possibility of systematic biases in preference measurement. Should try to deal with them as good as possible. I think: correct for them, based on knowledge of literature. 12

surgery Patient with larynx-cancer (stage T3). Radio-therapy or surgery? radio- therapy artificial speech  0.6 recurrency, surgery cure normal voice 1p1p p nor- mal voice  or artifi- cial sp eech Hypothetical standard gamble question: artificial speech  recurrency cure artificial speech For which p equivalence? Patient answers: p = 0.9. Expected utility: U(  ) = 0; U(normal voice) = 1; U(artificial speech) = 0.9   0 = 0.9. U p UpUp EU Answer: r.th! Before going to hypothetical question, so just after the square appeared around the decision tree, talk some about the tree, pros and cons, essentialness of asking for subjective input of patient where piano player doesn't mind losing voice but teacher does, etc. Also tell already here that analysis is going to be based on expected utilty. Before going to hypothetical question, so just after the square appeared around the decision tree, talk some about the tree, pros and cons, essentialness of asking for subjective input of patient where piano player doesn't mind losing voice but teacher does, etc. Also tell already here that analysis is going to be based on expected utilty. Possibly discuss already here that much can be criticized, such as EU etc. But that this is a machinery that works at least, and that brought many “political” steps forward in the health domain, such as consideration of qualitity of life (iso five- year survival rate), and the very fact that patients and their subjective situation can be involved. That for this technique there are computer programs available to implement it, and C/E analyses can be performed with it. 99% of applications in the field go like this. I in fact bother more about problems in the model than most applied people. Most applied people say: Peter just don’t bother. You will all be criticizing me for not bothering enough.fs

14 Million-$ question: Correct how? Which parts of behavior are taken as “bias,” to be corrected for, and which not? Which theory does describe risky choices better? Current state of the art according to me: Prospect theory, Tversky & Kahneman (1992). Depending on whether public is tired of general discussions or not, state the following point: Several authors have suggested such a role of prospect theory, but always in the context of reconciling inconsistencies. We go one step further. If your data are too poor to elicit inconsistencies if present, then correct for the inconsistencies that you know from other observations, such as collected in prospect theory, nevertheless. As in the ethical example.

First deviation from expected utility: probability transformation 15 p w+w Figure. The common weighting function (Luce 2000). w  is similar; Second deviation from expected utility: loss aversion/sign dependence. People consider outcomes as gains and losses with respect to their status quo. They then overweight losses by a factor = 2.25.

U p Corrected Standard Gamble Utility Curve 16

0 Treatment probability big: treat! not treat! if Good impaired health state Qol probability big: Treatment probability = 0.90 throughout the lecture. Qol probability =: to be measured. Please remember the enlarged text through the o.

(impaired) health state ("not treat") ortreat treatment probability Treatment decision for your patient 1 health state ~ qol- probability Mean etc. from 10,000 similar patients Question 1 to the audience: Would you treat or not treat your patient?

(impaired) health state ("not treat") ortreat treatment probability Treatment decision for your patient 2 health state ~ qol- probability Mean etc. from 10,000 similar patients Question 2 to the audience: Would you treat or not treat your patient? health state ~ new qol- probability Mean etc. from 10,000 similar patients

(impaired) health state ("not treat") ortreat treatment probability Treatment decision for your patient 3 health state ~ qol- probability Mean etc. from 10,000 similar patients Question 3 to the audience: Would you treat or not treat your patient? health state ~ new qol- probability Mean etc. from 10,000 similar patients health state ~ qol- probability Your own patient: No new-qol measurement could be done with your patient.

(impaired) health state ("not treat") ortreat treatment probability Treatment decision for your patient 4 Question 4 to the audience: Would you treat or not treat your patient? health state ~ qol- probability Your own patient: No new-qol measurement could be done with your patient.