Understanding High-Stakes Consumer Decisions: Mammography Adherence Following False-Alarm Test Results
AbstractConsumers often have to decide whether to acquire information in high-stakes decision domains. We study women in mammography waiting rooms to test how a “false-alarm” result (i.e., an indication that a malady is present when a “more accurate” follow-up test reveals it is not) affects willingness to get retested. In Study 1 we show that, given a false-alarm result, life-threatening test consequences are associated with more disutility for future testing than when test consequences are less significant; this does not hold for normal test results. In Study 2 in the mammography context, we show that patients receiving a false-alarm result experienced more stress, were less likely to believe that a positive mammography result indicated cancer, and more likely to delay mammography than patients receiving normal results unless they were also told that they may be vulnerable to breast cancer in the future. We show that delays in planned adherence following a false-alarm result can be mitigated by an information intervention. Finally, we have preliminary evidence that a previous history of false-positive results can cause a consumer to both react more negatively to emotional stress and respond more positively to coping information.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by INFORMS in its journal Marketing Science.
Volume (Year): 22 (2003)
Issue (Month): 3 (April)
Value of Information; Decision Making Under Uncertainty; Medical Decision Making; Stress; Cancer False-Positive; Patient Preferences; Mammography; Medical Testing; High-Stakes Decisions;
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- repec:hal:wpaper:hal-00638266 is not listed on IDEAS
- Burson, Katherine A. & Faro, David & Rottenstreich, Yuval, 2010. "ABCs of principal-agent interactions: Accurate predictions, biased processes, and contrasts between working and delegating," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 1-12, September.
- Osimani, Barbara, 2012. "Risk information processing and rational ignoring in the health context," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 169-179.
- Aaker, Jennifer L. & Lee, Angela Y., 2006. "Understanding Regulatory Fit," Research Papers 1910, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
- Camacho, N.M.A. & de Jong, M.G. & Stremersch, S., 2014. "The Effect of Customer Empowerment on Adherence to Expert Advice," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2014-005-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus Uni.
- repec:hal:gemwpa:hal-00638266 is not listed on IDEAS
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.