|Appears in Collections:||Economics Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||Die-by Framing both Lengthens and Shortens Life: Further Evidence on Constructed Beliefs in Life Expectancy (Forthcoming/Available Online)|
|Authors:||Comerford, David A|
|Citation:||Comerford DA & Robinson J (2017) Die-by Framing both Lengthens and Shortens Life: Further Evidence on Constructed Beliefs in Life Expectancy (Forthcoming/Available Online), Journal of Behavioral Decision Making.|
|Abstract:||Decisions regarding consumption over the lifespan require some estimate of how long that lifespan is likely to be. Payne et al. (2013) found that respondents' estimates of their own life expectancy are on average 8.6years shorter when elicited using a die-by frame than when elicited by a live-to frame. If decision makers act on these life expectancies, then an arbitrary detail of framing will lead to drastically different choices. We propose that the framing effect is sensitive to the iterative probabilistic elicitation procedure employed by the previous literature. Study 1 compares the framing effect across the iterative probabilistic procedure and a point estimate procedure that simply asks respondents the age they will live to/die by. The iterative probabilistic procedure implies a life expectancy six years shorter in the die-by frame than in the live-to frame, replicating the results of Payne et al. (2013). With the point estimate procedure, however, the framing effect reverses: the die-by frame increases life expectancy by three years. In Study 2, we test for the framing effect using a point estimate procedure on a representative sample of 2000 Britons. Again, and in contrast with the previous literature, we find that the die-by frame implies longer life. Our results reinforce the previous literature that beliefs around life expectancy are constructed. We recommend caution when attempting to debias life expectancy estimates or using life expectancies in choice architecture.|
|Rights:||This item has been embargoed for a period. During the embargo please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author. You can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study.|
|final manuscript.pdf||421 kB||Adobe PDF||Under Embargo until 29/7/2018 Request a copy|
Note: If any of the files in this item are currently embargoed, you can request a copy directly from the author by clicking the padlock icon above. However, this facility is dependent on the depositor still being contactable at their original email address.
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.