Advertisement

Heuristics and Biases in Health Decision Making

Their Expression in Genetic Counseling
  • Shoshana Shiloh
Part of the Social Psychological Applications to Social Issues book series (SPAS, volume 3)

Abstract

Heuristics and biases, as delineated in the social cognitive field, pertain to judgments about the chances of uncertain events and states that deviate from formal rules. Such judgments have also been central in some of the leading theories and research programs on health and illness behavior. Current health psychology research is replete with examples of the major role played by uncertainty judgments. Some of the topics studied are: beliefs about personal susceptibility to a disease, and chances that a recommended action would cure or prevent a health problem (Rogers, 1983; Rosenstock, Strecher, & Becker, 1988); the perceived significance of specific symptoms as signs of illness (Bauman, Cameron, Zimmerman, & Leventhal, 1989; Bishop, 1987); the assumed prevalence of a disease in the population (Jemmott, Croyle, & Ditto, 1988); and unrealistic optimism about one’s health status (Weinstein, 1983).

Keywords

Genetic Counseling Risk Perception Genetic Risk Prenatal Diagnosis Recurrence Risk 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, C. A., & Godfrey, S. S. (1987). Thoughts about actions: The effects of specifity and availability of imagined behavioral scripts on expectations about oneself and others. Social Cognition, 5, 238–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antley, R. M. (1979). The genetic counselor as facilitator of the counselee’s decision process. In: C. J. Epstein, C. J. R. Curry, S. Packman, S. Sherman, & B. D. Hall (Eds.), Risk, communication, and decision making in genetic counseling (pp. 137–168). New York: Alan R. Liss, for the National Foundation-March of Dimes. Birth Defects: Original Articles Series, 15.Google Scholar
  3. Bauman, L. J., Cameron, L. D., Zimmerman, R. S., & Leventhal, H. (1989). Illness representations and matching labels with symptoms. Health Psychology, 8, 449–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beeson, D., & Golbus, M. S. (1985). Decision making: Whether or not to have prenatal diagnosis and abortion for sex-linked conditions. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 20, 107–114.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berkenstadt, M. (1993). The influence of genetic counseling on perceived personal control and coping with stress. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tel Aviv University Medical School, Israel.Google Scholar
  6. Bishop, G. D. (1987). Lay conceptions of physical symptoms. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 127–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blumberg, B. (1984). The emotional implications of prenatal diagnosis. In: A. E. H. Emery, & I. Pullen (Eds.), Psychological aspects of genetic counseling (pp. 201–217). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bringle, R. G., & Antley, R. M. (1980). Elaboration of the definition of genetic counseling into a model for counselee decision making. Social Biology, 27, 304–318.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Broder, H., & Trier, W. C. (1985). Effectiveness of genetic counseling for families with craniofacial anomalies. Cleft Palate Journal, 22, 157–162.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Croyle, R. T. (1992). Appraisal of health threats: Cognition, motivation, and social comparison. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16, 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Croyle, R. T., & Sande, G. N. (1988). Denial and confirmatory search: Paradoxical consequences of medical diagnosis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 473–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Curley, S. P., Yates, J. F., & Young, M. J. (1990). Seeking and applying diagnostic information in a health care setting. Acta Psychologica, 73, 211–223.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ditto, P. H., Jemmott III, J. B., & Dareley, J. M. (1988). Appraising the threat of illness: A mental representational approach. Health Psychology, 7, 183–201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. d’Ydewalle, G., & Evers-Kiebooms, G. (1987). Experiments on genetic risk perception and decisionmaking: Explorative studies. In: G. Evers-Kiebooms, J. J. Cassiman, H. Van den Berghe, G. d’Ydewalle (Eds.), Genetic risk, risk perception, and decision making (pp. 209–225). New York: Alan R. Liss, for the National Foundation-March of Dimes. Birth Defects: Original Articles Series, 23.Google Scholar
  15. Eqwo, E. E., Seals, B. F., Kim, J. O., Williamson, R. A., & Hanson, J. W. (1985). Factors influencing maternal estimates of genetic risk. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 20, 491–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eraker, S. A., & Polister, P. (1982). How decisions are reached: Physician and patient. Annals of Internal Medicine, 97, 262–268.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social Cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  18. Fraser, F. C. (1974). Genetic counseling. American Journal of Human Genetics, 15, 1–10.Google Scholar
  19. Frets, P. G., Duivenvoorden, H. J., Verhage, F., Ketzer, E., & Niermeijer, M. F. (1990). Model identifying the reproductive decision after genetic counseling. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 35, 503–509.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Humphreys, P., & Berkeley, D. (1987). Representing risks: Supporting genetic counseling. In: G. Evers-Kiebooms, J. J. Cassiman, H. Van den Berghe, G. d’Ydewalle (Eds.), Genetic risk, risk perception, and decision making (pp. 227–250). New York: Alan R. Liss, for the National Foundation-March of Dimes. Birth Defects: Original Articles Series, 23.Google Scholar
  21. Janis, I. L. (1982). Counseling on personal decisions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Jemmott III, J. B., Croyle, R. T., & Ditto, P. H. (1988). Commonsense epidemiology: Self-biased judgements from lay persons and physicians. Health Psychology, 7, 55–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jepson, C., Krantz, D. H., & Nisbett, R. E. (1983). Inductive reasoning: Competence or skill? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6, 494–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The simulation heuristic. In: D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 201–208). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kessler, S. (1988). Invited essay on the psychological aspects of genetic counseling: V Preselection: A family coping strategy in Huntington disease. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 31, 617–621.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kessler, S. (1989). Psychological aspects of genetic counseling: VI. A critical review of the literature dealing with education and reproduction. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 34, 340–353.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kessler, S. (1990). Current psychological issues in genetic counseling. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 11, 5–18.Google Scholar
  29. Kessler, S., & Bloch, M. (1989). Social system responses to Huntington disease. Family Process, 28, 59–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kessler, S., & Levine, E. K. (1987). Psychological aspects of genetic counseling: IV. The subjective assessment of probability. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 28, 361–370.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Knutson, C., & Amacker-North, E. (1989). Practices and attitudes towards prenatal diagnosis by genetic counselors. American Journal of Medical Genetics, A123.Google Scholar
  32. Konoid, C. (1989). Informal conceptions of probability. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 59–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kruglanski, A. W., & Ajzen, I. (1983). Bias and error in human judgement. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lippman-Hand, A., & Fraser, F. C. (1979a). Genetic counseling: Provision and reception of information. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 3, 113–127.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lippman-Hand, A., & Fraser, F. C. (1979b). Genetic counseling—the postcounseling period: Parents’ perceptions of uncertainty. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 4, 51–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lopes, L. L. (1984). Risk and distributional inequality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 465–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lubs, M. L. (1979). Does genetic counseling influence risk attitudes and decision making? In: C. J. Epstein, C. J. R. Curry, S. Packman, S. Sherman, & B. D. Hall (Eds.), Risk, communication, and decision making in genetic counseling (pp. 355–367). New York: Alan R. Liss, for the National Foundation-March of Dimes. Birth Defects: Original Articles Series, 15.Google Scholar
  39. MacLeod, A. K., Williams, M. G., & Bekerian, D. A. (1991). Worry is reasonable: The role of explanations in pessimism about future personal events. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 478–486.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marteau, T. M. (1989). Framing of information: Its influence upon decisions of doctors and patients. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 89–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marteau, T. M. (1991). Psychological aspects of prenatal testing for fetal abnormalities. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 12, 121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marteau, T. M., Van Duijn, M., & Ellis, I. (1992). Effects of genetic screening on perceptions of health: A pilot study. Journal of Medical Genetics, 29, 24–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marteau, T. M., Kidd, J., Cook, R., Michie, S., Johnston, M., Slack, J., & Shaw, R. W (1992). Psychological effects of having amniocentesis: Are these due to the procedure, the risk or the behaviour? Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 36, 395–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Marteau, T. M., Plenicar, M., & Kidd, J. (1993). Obstetricians presenting amniocentesis to pregnant women: Practice observed. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 11, 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McNeil, B. J., Pauker, S. G., Sox Jr., H. C., & Tversky, A. (1982). On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. The New England Journal of Medicine, 306, 1259–1262.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Metheny, W. P., Holtzman, G. B., Taylor, J., Young, W., & Higgins, J. V. (1989). Amniocentesis use and risk awareness: Comparison of knowledge and beliefs among older gravida. Social Biology, 35, 50–61.Google Scholar
  47. Miller, S. M., Brody, D. S., & Summerton, J. (1988). Styles of coping with threat: Implications for health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 142–148.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nisbett, R. E., & Borgida, E. (1975). Attribution and the psychology of prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 932–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nisbett, R. E., Krantz, D. H., Jepson, C., & Kunda, Z. (1983). The use of statistical heuristics in everyday inductive reasoning. Psychological Review, 90, 339–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  51. Organista, P. B., & Miranda, J. (1991). Psychosomatic symptoms in medical outpatients: An investigation of self handicapping theory. Health Psychology, 10, 427–431.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pauker, S. G., & Pauker, S. B. (1987). Prescriptive models to support decision making in genetics. In: G. Evers-Kiebooms, J. J. Cassiman, H. Van den Berghe, G. d’Ydewalle (Eds.), Genetic risk, risk perception, and decision making (pp. 279–296). New York: Alan R. Liss, for the National Foundation-March of Dimes. Birth Defects: Original Articles Series, 23.Google Scholar
  53. Quaid, K. A., Brandt, J., Faden, R. R., & Folstein, S. E. (1989). Knowledge, attitudes, and the decision to be tested for Huntington’s disease. Clinical Genetics, 36, 431–438.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Quattrone, G. A., & Jones, E. E. (1980). The perception of variability within in-groups and out-groups: Implications for the law of large numbers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 141–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Reznik, H. (1991). Consanguineous marriage in Israel: The influence of premarital genetic counseling on the decision of consanguineous couples to get married, and the incidence of obstetrical complications and congenital malformations in their offsprings. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tel-Aviv University, Israel.Google Scholar
  56. Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and physiological processes in attitude change: A revised theory of protection motivation. In: J. Cacioppo, & R. Petty (Eds.), Social Psychophysiology (pp. 153–176). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  57. Rosenstock, I. M., Strecher, V. J., & Becker, M. H. (1988). Social learning theory and the health belief model. Health Education Quarterly, 15, 175–183.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sagi, M. (1993). Parents’ decision making on utilization of prenatal diagnosis for two genetic disorders: cleft lip and/or palate and Gaucher disease. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Hebrew University Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel.Google Scholar
  59. Sagi, M., Shiloh, S., & Cohen, T. (1992). Application of the health belief model in a study on parents’ intentions to utilize prenatal diagnosis of cleft lip and/or palate. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 44, 326–333.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Shiloh, S., & Sagi, M. (1989). Framing effects in the presentation of genetic recurrence risks. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 33, 130–135.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Shiloh, S., & Saxe, L. (1989). Perception of recurrence risks by genetic counselees. Psychology and Health, 3, 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Shipps, S., & Zinn, A. B. (1986). Psychological responses to amniocentesis: I. Mood states and adaptation to pregnancy. American Journal of Medical Psychology, 25, 131–142.Google Scholar
  63. Skelton, J. A., & Strohmetz, D. B. (1990). Priming symptom reports with health-related cognitive activity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 449–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280–285.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sorenson, J. R., Scotch, N., Swazey, J., Wertz, D. C., & Heeren, T. (1987). Reproductive plans of genetic counseling clients not eligible for prenatal diagnosis. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 28, 345–352.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Swerts, A. (1987). Impact of genetic counseling and prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome and neural tube defects. In: G. Evers-Kiebooms, J. J. Cassiman, H. Van den Berghe, G. d’Ydewalle (Eds.), Genetic risk, risk perception, and decision making (pp. 61–83). New York: Alan R. Liss, for the National Foundation-March of Dimes. Birth Defects: Original Articles Series, 23.Google Scholar
  67. Thomson, E., et al. (1992). National Institute of Health Workshop Statement. Reproductive genetic testing: Impact on women. American Journal of Human Genetics, 51, 1161–1163.Google Scholar
  68. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1972). Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 105–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Vlek, C. (1987). Risk assessment, risk perception and decision making about courses of action involving genetic risk: An overview of concepts and methods. In: G. Evers-Kiebooms, J. J. Cassiman, H. Van den Berghe, G. d’Ydewalle (Eds.), Genetic risk, risk perception, and decision making (pp. 171–217). New York: Alan R. Liss, for the National Foundation-March of Dimes. Birth Defects: Original Articles Series, 23.Google Scholar
  73. Wallsten, T. S., Budescu, D. V., Rapoport, A., Zwick, R., & Forsyth, B. (1986). Measuring the vague meanings of probability terms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 348–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Weil, J. (1991). Mothers’ postcounseling beliefs about the causes of their children’s genetic disorders. American Journal of Human Genetics, 48, 145–153.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Weinstein, N. D. (1983). Reducing unrealistic optimism about illness susceptibility. Health Psychology, 2, 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Weinstein, N. D. (1987). Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems: Conclusions from a community-wide sample. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 10, 481–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wertz, D. C., Sorenson, J. R., & Heeren, T. C. (1986). Clients’ interpretation of risks provided in genetic counseling. American Journal of Human Genetics, 39, 253–264.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Yates, J. F., & Stone, E. R. (1992). Risk appraisal. In: J. H. Yates (Ed.), Risk-taking Behavior (pp. 49–86). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  79. Yates, J. F., & Zukowski, L. G. (1976). Characterization of ambiguity in decision making. Behavioral Science, 21, 19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shoshana Shiloh
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations