IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/rdepol/v7y2002i02p121-130_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk perception and risk attitude in informed consent

Author

Listed:
  • SCHWARTZ, ALAN
  • HASNAIN, MEMOONA

Abstract

The standard account of the ‘reflection effect’ (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979) is that attitude toward risk changes across gain or loss framings of outcomes. Weber and Bottom (1989) proposed an alternative account in which decision makers have stable risk attitudes, but changing risk perceptions. Undergraduates were randomly assigned to read one of three hypothetical informed consent documents from a trial of a cholesterol-lowering drug. Documents used gain, loss or both framings to describe expected benefits. Respondents rated riskiness of participation and non-participation in the trial and made a choice about whether they would participate in the trial.The reflection effect was replicated. In addition, as predicted by the Weber and Bottom account, respondents in the gain condition were more likely to rate participation as riskier than non-participation compared to respondents in the loss condition, and in each condition more than 70 per cent of respondents chose to avoid the option they judged as riskier. Implications for informed consent are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Schwartz, Alan & Hasnain, Memoona, 2002. "Risk perception and risk attitude in informed consent," Risk, Decision and Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 121-130, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:rdepol:v:7:y:2002:i:02:p:121-130_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1357530902000558/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:rdepol:v:7:y:2002:i:02:p:121-130_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/rdp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.