A matter of perspective
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
BACKGROUND: Many people display omission bias in medical decision making, accepting the risk of passive nonintervention rather than actively choosing interventions (such as vaccinations) that result in lower levels of risk.
OBJECTIVE: Testing whether people’s preferences for active interventions would increase when deciding for others versus for themselves.
RESEARCH DESIGN: Survey participants imagined themselves in 1 of 4 roles: patient, physician treating a single patient, medical director creating treatment guidelines, or parent deciding for a child. All read 2 short scenarios about vaccinations for a deadly flu and treatments for a slow-growing cancer.
PARTICIPANTS: Two thousand three hundred and ninety-nine people drawn from a demographically stratified internet sample.
MEASURES: Chosen or recommended treatments. We also measured participants’ emotional response to our task.
RESULTS: Preferences for risk-reducing active treatments were significantly stronger for participants imagining themselves as medical professionals than for those imagining themselves as patients (vaccination: 73% [physician] & 63% [medical director] vs 48% [patient], Ps<.001; chemotherapy: 68% & 68% vs 60%, Ps<.012). Similar results were observed for the parental role (vaccination: 57% vs 48%, P=.003; chemotherapy: 72% vs 60%, P<.001). Reported emotional reactions were stronger in the responsible medical professional and parental roles yet were also independently associated with treatment choice, with higher scores associated with reduced omission tendencies (OR=1.15 for both regressions, Ps<.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment preferences may be substantially influenced by a decision-making role. As certain roles appear to reinforce “big picture” thinking about difficult risk tradeoffs, physicians and patients should consider re-framing treatment decisions to gain new, and hopefully beneficial, perspectives.
- Ritov I, Baron J. Reluctance to vaccinate: omission bias and ambiguity. J Behav Decis Making. 1990;3:263–77.
- Spranca M, Minsk E, Baron J. Omission and commission in judgment and choice. J Exp Soc Psychol. 1991;27:76–105. CrossRef
- Asch DA, Baron J, Hershey JC, et al. Omission bias and pertussis vaccination. Med Decis Making. 1994;14:118–23. CrossRef
- Meszaros JR, Asch DA, Baron J, Hershey JC, Kunreuther H, Schwartz-Buzaglo J. Cognitive processes and the decisions of some parents to forego pertussis vaccination for their children. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:697–703. CrossRef
- Baron J, Ritov I. Omission bias, individual differences, and normality. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2004;94:74–85. CrossRef
- Haidt J, Baron J. Social roles and the moral judgment of acts and omissions. Eur J Soc Psychol. 1996;26:201–18. CrossRef
- Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N. Risk as feelings. Psychol Bull. 2001;127:267–86. CrossRef
- Kray L, Gonzalez R. Differential weighting in choice versus advice: I’ll do this, you do that. J Behav Decis Making. 1999;12:207–17. CrossRef
- Jonas E, Schulz-Hardt S, Frey D. Giving advice or making decisions in someone else’s place: the influence of impression, defense, and accuracy motivation on the search for new information. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2005;31:977–90. CrossRef
- Demoratz MJ. Advance directives: getting patients to complete them before they need them. Case Manager. 2005;16:61–3.
- Lantos J. Informed consent. The whole truth for patients?. Cancer. 1993;72(suppl 9):2811–5. CrossRef
- Kurzon N. A poker player’s guide to beating cancer. Newsweek 2004, January 19, 2004: 12.
- Asch DA, Hershey JC. Why some health policies don’t make sense at the bedside. Ann Intern Med. 1995;122:846–50.
- Chant AD. Practising doctors should not manage. Lancet. 1984;1:1398. CrossRef
- Wroe AL, Turner N, Salkovskis PM. Understanding and predicting parental decisions about early childhood immunizations. Health Psychol. 2004;23:33–41. CrossRef
- Wroe AL, Bhan A, Salkovskis P, Bedford H. Feeling bad about immunising our children. Vaccine. 2005;23:1428–33. CrossRef
- Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;54:1063–70. CrossRef
- Carstensen LL, Isaacowitz DM, Charles CT. Taking time seriously: a theory of socioemotional selectivity. Am Psychol. 1999;54:165–81. CrossRef
- Charles S, Mather M, Carstensen LL. Aging and emotional memory: the forgettable nature of negative images for older adults. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2003;132:310–24. CrossRef
- Peters E, Finucane ML, MacGregor DG, Slovic P. The bearable lightness of aging: judgment and decision processes in older adults. In: Stern PC, Carstensen LL, eds. The Aging Mind: Opportunities in Cognitive Research. Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academy Press; 2000:144–65.
- Williams P, Drolet A. Age-related differences in responses to emotional advertisements. J Consum Res. 2005;32:343–54. CrossRef
- Kray LJ. Contingent weighting in self-other decision making. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2000;83:82–106. CrossRef
- Connolly T, Zeelenberg M. Regret in decision making. Psychol Sci. 2004;11:212–6.
- Raymark P. Accepting or rejecting medical treatment: a comparison of decisions made for self versus those made for a significant other. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2000;30:2409–36. CrossRef
- Ubel PA. “What should I do, doc?”: some psychologic benefits of physician recommendations. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:977–80. CrossRef
- Gurmankin AD, Baron J, Hershey JC, Ubel PA. The role of physicians recommendations in medical treatment decisions. Med Decis Making. 2002;22:262–71.
- McNutt RA. Shared medical decision making: problems, process, progress. JAMA. 2004;292:2516–8. CrossRef
- Schneider CE. The Practice of Autonomy: Patients, Doctors, and Medical Decisions. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1998.
- A matter of perspective
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Volume 21, Issue 6 , pp 618-622
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- decision making
- risk communication
- omission bias
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. VA Health Services Research & Development Center for Practice Management and Outcomes Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
- 2. Center for Behavioral and Decision Sciences in Medicine, 300 North Ingalls Building, Rm. 7C27, 48109-0429, Ann Arbor, MI
- 3. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
- 4. Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA