This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Are medical treatments for individuals and groups like single-play and multiple-play gambles?

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Michael L. DeKay
John C. Hershey
Mark D. Spranca,
Peter A. Ubel
David A. Asch
Abstract

People are often more likely to accept risky monetary gambles with positive expected values when the gambles will be played more than once. We investigated whether this distinction between single-play and multiple-play gambles extends to medical treatments for individual patients and groups of patients. Resident physicians and medical students (\textit{n} = 69) and undergraduates (\textit{n} = 99) ranked 9 different flu shots and a no-flu-shot option in 1 of 4 combinations of perspective (individual patient vs.\ group of 1000 patients) and uncertainty frame (probability vs.\ frequency). The rank of the no-flu-shot option (a measure of preference for treatment vs.\ no treatment) was not significantly related to perspective or participant population. The main effect of uncertainty frame and the interaction between perspective and uncertainty frame approached significance (0.1 {\textgreater} \textit{p} {\textgreater} 0.05), with the no-flu-shot option faring particularly poorly (treatment faring particularly well) when decisions about many patients were based on frequency information. Undergraduate participants believed that the no-flu-shot option would be less attractive (treatment would be more attractive) in decisions about many patients, but these intuitions were inconsistent with the actual ranks. These results and those of other studies suggest that medical treatments for individuals and groups are not analogous to single-play and multiple-play monetary gambles, perhaps because many people are unwilling to aggregate treatment outcomes over patients in the same way that they would compute net gains or losses over monetary gambles.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. 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.

File URL: http://journal.sjdm.org/jdm06133.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no
File URL: http://journal.sjdm.org/06133/jdm06133.htm
File Format: text/html
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Article provided by Society for Judgment and Decision Making in its journal Judgment and Decision Making.

Volume (Year): 1 (2006)
Issue (Month): (November)
Pages: 134-145
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:jdm:journl:v:1:y:2006:i::p:134-145

Contact details of provider:

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Jonathan Baron).

Related research
Keywords: aggregation; fungibility; individuals versus groups; medical treatment decisions; multiple-play; repeated-play.;

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

  1. Nielsen, Lars Tyge, 1985. " Attractive Compounds of Unattractive Investments and Gambles," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 87(3), pages 463-73.
  2. Ross, Stephen A., 1999. "Adding Risks: Samuelson's Fallacy of Large Numbers Revisited," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(03), pages 323-339, September. [Downloadable!]
  3. Fetherstonhaugh, David, et al, 1997. "Insensitivity to the Value of Human Life: A Study of Psychophysical Numbing," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 283-300, May-June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. Read, Daniel & Loewenstein, George & Rabin, Matthew, 1999. "Choice Bracketing," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 171-97, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. Baron, Jonathan, 1997. "Confusion of Relative and Absolute Risk in Valuation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 301-9, May-June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. Ritov, Ilana & Baron, Jonathan, 1992. " Status-Quo and Omission Biases," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 49-61, February.
  7. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. " Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? The RePEc project started in 1997. Its precursor, NetEc, dates back to 1993.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-27.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.