Hypothetical Bias in the SG and TTO

Aurélien Baillon (), Han Bleichrodt and Georg D Granic
Additional contact information
Aurélien Baillon: EM - EMLyon Business School
Han Bleichrodt: Universidad de Alicante
Georg D Granic: Erasmus University Rotterdam

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: Background: Health state utility measurements are central in health policy and medical decision making. Common methods are the standard gamble (SG) and the time tradeoff (TTO). They typically use hypothetical questions. It is unknown whether this leads to a bias. Methods: We used the Bayesian truth serum (BTS) to incentivize choices in the SG and the TTO. We asked these choices both with and without incentives in 2 online experiments: 1 with 498 Dutch students and 1 with 1,298 members of the US general population. To give incentives their maximal possibility to work, we deliberately introduced default bias in the US sample. Results: Incentives made no difference. Individual choices and aggregate valuations in the SG and the TTO were the same with and without incentives in both experiments. Defaults affected the TTO, but not the SG. Limitations: The BTS assumes that respondents have a common prior and use Bayesian updating. Moreover, it is hard to explain why answering truthfully is in respondents' best interests in the BTS. Conclusions and Implications: Incentives did not affect the SG and TTO. Our results support the current practice of using hypothetical questions in health state utility measurement. Highlights: We found no evidence of hypothetical bias in the choices made in the SG and TTO measurements.This was true even when we introduced a default bias.The common practice to use hypothetical questions in health state utility measurement seems valid.

Keywords: time tradeoff; hypothetical bias; health state utility measurement; Bayesian truth serum; standard gamble (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2026-05-01
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Published in Medical Decision Making, 2026, 46 (4), pp.489-500. ⟨10.1177/0272989X261423884⟩

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:journl:hal-05581314

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X261423884

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().