Publication Type: Abstract
Abstract: Background. The direct elicitation of preferences for different health states is one method suggested for measuring quality of life. Direct elicitation methods include the standard gamble (SG), time trade-off (TTO), and visual analog scale (VAS). Though theoretically appealing, in practice these methods produce some troubling results. First, the distribution of elicited preferences can be both left and right censored, with many persons rating health scenarios with a zero or one value. Second, health states that should have a logical ordering may receive reverse rankings. Finally, little is known about how the direct elicitation methods correlate with quality of life ratings derived from scales such as the Quality of Well-Being (QWB) scale.
Setting. Eighty-eight persons rated health states using the SG, TTO, and VAS methods and completed the Quality of Well-Being (QWB) scale. Thirty-four of the persons were randomly recruited; the other 54 were persons with disabilities. All persons rated 9 health states (the subject’s own health, single-eye blindness, double-eye blindness, and 6 scenarios that included various disabilities) using the 3 methods. Each of the 6 disability scenarios had two variants that differed only in health status; respondents were randomly assigned one of the two versions. Preferences were elicited using computerized software.
Methods. The mean preferences from the SG, TTO, and VAS methods were compared and the distributions were graphed. Multinomial logistic regression to predict zero, intermediate, and one responses used patient demographics and preference elicitation method as explanatory variables. The number of preference reversals within and across methods was counted. Correlation with preference imputation was examined by comparing the SG, TTO, and VAS utility values for own health with the QWB score.
Results. The SG and TTO methods gave higher mean preferences than the VAS method. However, the higher means were due primarily to a large number of ones. There were also many zeros, so that the distributions were both left and right censored. The VAS method yielded smoother single-peaked distributions of preferences across all health states. Inconsistent preferences occurred relatively infrequently. Blindness health states were rated inconsistently by 9% of respondents using the SG, 3% using the TTO, and 11% using the VAS. Across disabilityscenarios, persons with disabilities gave preference ratings that were 0.02 (SG) to 0.09 (VAS) higher than randomly selected participants, although among 36 options of health status and rating technique, there were several comparisons that were reversed. Randomly selected subjects were more consistent in giving the higher health state scenario a higher rating. None of the three methods were significantly correlated with the QWB scores for own health, the VAS method had the highest correlation (r=.179; p=.108).
Discussion. The distributions of preferences suggest that use of the SG and TTO methods is problematic. The large numbers of zeros and ones could be valid responses, or could indicate difficulty understanding the methods or protest valuations. The number of preference reversals was a small minority of all possible comparisons, but is troubling nonetheless. None of the three methods was correlated with QWB scores when rating own health.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: How do governments form preferences at international negotiations? Are governments accountable to the electorate when formulating an international bargaining position? Do they consider the positions of parliamentary ratification constraints? These are extremely important and under-researched topics in the international bargaining literature. Actors’ preferences can greatly affect a bargaining outcome; however the process of preference formation is not well understood. Using data on European Union negotiations, specifically from the intergovernmental conference (IGC) leading to the 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam, I examine why EU member state governments take certain positions. I use data on government positions over all issues discussed during the Amsterdam IGC as well as Eurobarometer survey data and expert opinion data on party positions to determine how closely government bargaining positions reflect the preferences of voters, parties in government, and parties in parliament whose support is necessary for treaty ratification. Despite constant debate in the EU over the “democratic deficit”, findings suggest that government bargaining positions are, in fact, in line with the preferences of their constituencies. They do not, however, reflect the position of parties in parliament necessary for ratification.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The paper attempts to open the ‘black box’ of the national preference formation process on constitutional reforms and investigates executive-legislative bargainings s during a number of constitutional reform processes.

Publication Type: Session Paper
Abstract: This study addresses the question of “why individuals are attracted to media violence” by examining relations between media violence use across generations and across modalities, i.e., passive and active media (e.g., television vs. video games) Using structural equation modeling and data from a study of 335 families, we examine relations between two generation’s preferences for violent passive and violent interactive media. Violent television viewing by the first generation positively predicts violent television viewing by both genders in the second generation, but does not predict violent video game playing in either gender. Although males in the second generation prefer more violent television shows and video games than females, liking for violent television viewing is positively correlated with liking for violent video games in both genders. These results suggest that there are characteristic individual differences in preferences for violent media that are transmitted across generations but that depend on availability of media.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper extends the work of Markus Prior connecting media choice and relative preferences for entertainment to voter turnout. Prior's analyses found that individuals who both preferred entertaining content to news and had either cable or Internet access were less likely to vote than were other citizens. As an update to his work, this paper uses more recent Pew surveys to test alternative measures of entertainment preferences and to update the Internet access findings for the broadband age. As a theoretical extension, this paper looks at turnout differences among those with finer content preferences. Specifically, people who prefer hard news are compared to those choosing entertaining news (e.g., entertainment, sports, and arts). The results indicate that there is value in considering Relative Entertaining News Preference in addition to—or even instead of—relative entertainment preferences alone.