IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v75y2012i2p367-376.html

Risk as feelings in the effect of patient outcomes on physicians' future treatment decisions: A randomized trial and manipulation validation

Author

Listed:
  • Hemmerich, Joshua A.
  • Elstein, Arthur S.
  • Schwarze, Margaret L.
  • Moliski, Elizabeth Ghini
  • Dale, William

Abstract

The present study tested predictions derived from the Risk as Feelings hypothesis about the effects of prior patients' negative treatment outcomes on physicians' subsequent treatment decisions. Two experiments at The University of Chicago, U.S.A., utilized a computer simulation of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) patient with enhanced realism to present participants with one of three experimental conditions: AAA rupture causing a watchful waiting death (WWD), perioperative death (PD), or a successful operation (SO), as well as the statistical treatment guidelines for AAA. Experiment 1 tested effects of these simulated outcomes on (n = 76) laboratory participants' (university student sample) self-reported emotions, and their ratings of valence and arousal of the AAA rupture simulation and other emotion-inducing picture stimuli. Experiment 2 tested two hypotheses: 1) that experiencing a patient WWD in the practice trial's experimental condition would lead physicians to choose surgery earlier, and 2) experiencing a patient PD would lead physicians to choose surgery later with the next patient. Experiment 2 presented (n = 132) physicians (surgeons and geriatricians) with the same experimental manipulation and a second simulated AAA patient. Physicians then chose to either go to surgery or continue watchful waiting. The results of Experiment 1 demonstrated that the WWD experimental condition significantly increased anxiety, and was rated similarly to other negative and arousing pictures. The results of Experiment 2 demonstrated that, after controlling for demographics, baseline anxiety, intolerance for uncertainty, risk attitudes, and the influence of simulation characteristics, the WWD experimental condition significantly expedited decisions to choose surgery for the next patient. The results support the Risk as Feelings hypothesis on physicians' treatment decisions in a realistic AAA patient computer simulation. Bad outcomes affected emotions and decisions, even with statistical AAA rupture risk guidance present. These results suggest that bad patient outcomes cause physicians to experience anxiety and regret that influences their subsequent treatment decision-making for the next patient.

Suggested Citation

  • Hemmerich, Joshua A. & Elstein, Arthur S. & Schwarze, Margaret L. & Moliski, Elizabeth Ghini & Dale, William, 2012. "Risk as feelings in the effect of patient outcomes on physicians' future treatment decisions: A randomized trial and manipulation validation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 367-376.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:75:y:2012:i:2:p:367-376
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.03.020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953612002857
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.03.020?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Loewenstein, George, 1996. "Out of Control: Visceral Influences on Behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 272-292, March.
    2. Therese Kobbeltvedt & Katharina Wolff, 2009. "The Risk-as-feelings hypothesis in a Theory-of-planned-behaviour perspective," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(7), pages 567-586, December.
    3. Ann-Renée Blais & Elke U. Weber, 2006. "A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, pages 33-47, July.
    4. Jamie C. Brehaut & Annette M. O'Connor & Timothy J. Wood & Thomas F. Hack & Laura Siminoff & Elisa Gordon & Deb Feldman-Stewart, 2003. "Validation of a Decision Regret Scale," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 23(4), pages 281-292, July.
    5. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    6. Ann-Renée Blais & Elke U. Weber, 2006. "A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT)Scale for Adult Populations," CIRANO Working Papers 2006s-24, CIRANO.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. J. S. Blumenthal-Barby & Heather Krieger, 2015. "Cognitive Biases and Heuristics in Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(4), pages 539-557, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Miraldo, M & Galizzi, M & Stavropoulou, C, 2013. "In sickness but not in wealth: Field evidence on patients’ risk preferences in the financial and health domain," Working Papers 31053, Imperial College, London, Imperial College Business School.
    2. Amanda Safford & James Sundali & Federico Guerrero, 2018. "Does Experiencing a Crash Make All the Difference? An Experiment on the Depression Babies Hypothesis," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(2), pages 21582440187, May.
    3. Thomas, Ranjeeta & Galizzi, Matteo M. & Moorhouse, Louisa & Nyamukapa, Constance & Hallett, Timothy B., 2024. "Do risk, time and prosocial preferences predict risky sexual behaviour of youths in a low-income, high-risk setting?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    4. Martijn Adriaan Boermans & Daan Willebrands, 2017. "Entrepreneurship, risk perception and firm performance," International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 31(4), pages 557-569.
    5. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    6. Bose, Neha & Sgroi, Daniel, 2019. "The Role of Theory of Mind and “Small Talk” Communication in Strategic Decision-Making," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 409, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    7. James Alm & Antoine Malézieux, 2021. "40 years of tax evasion games: a meta-analysis," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(3), pages 699-750, September.
    8. Humaira Mumtaz & Iqbal Javed & Allah Bakhsh, 2019. "Impact of Psychological Consequences on Poverty: An Evidence from Pakistan," Journal of Economic Impact, Science Impact Publishers, vol. 1(3), pages 70-79.
    9. Debapriya Jojo Paul & Julia Henker & Sian Owen, 2019. "The aggregate impacts of tournament incentives in experimental asset markets," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 441-476, June.
    10. Gürdal, Mehmet Y. & Kuzubaş, Tolga U. & Saltoğlu, Burak, 2017. "Measures of individual risk attitudes and portfolio choice: Evidence from pension participants," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 186-203.
    11. Christoph Buehren & Tim Meyer & Christian Pierdzioch, 2020. "Experimental Evidence on Forecaster (anti-) Herding in Sports Markets," MAGKS Papers on Economics 202038, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    12. Ploner, Matteo & Saredi, Viola, 2020. "Exploration and delegation in risky choices," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    13. Baert, Stijn, 2015. "Hiring a Homosexual, Taking a Risk? A Lab Experiment on Employment Discrimination and Risk Aversion," IZA Discussion Papers 9536, IZA Network @ LISER.
    14. Nguyen, Thi Tuyet Mai, 2017. "An examination of independent directors in Vietnam," OSF Preprints ay6dv, Center for Open Science.
    15. Moghaddasi Kelishomi, Ali & Sgroi, Daniel, 2022. "The Relationship between Cognitive Ability and Risk Preferences in a Developing Nation: Findings from the Field," IZA Discussion Papers 15266, IZA Network @ LISER.
    16. Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2016. "How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 107-136, December.
    17. Crystal Reeck & O’Dhaniel A Mullette-Gillman & R Edward McLaurin & Scott A Huettel, 2022. "Beyond money: Risk preferences across both economic and non-economic contexts predict financial decisions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(12), pages 1-12, December.
    18. Sterkens, Philippe & Baert, Stijn & Rooman, Claudia & Derous, Eva, 2021. "As if it weren’t hard enough already: Breaking down hiring discrimination following burnout," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    19. Renato Frey & Shannon M. Duncan & Elke U. Weber, 2023. "Towards a typology of risk preference: Four risk profiles describe two-thirds of individuals in a large sample of the U.S. population," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 66(1), pages 1-17, February.
    20. Joshua Tasoff & Wenjie Zhang, 2022. "The Performance of Time-Preference and Risk-Preference Measures in Surveys," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 1149-1173, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eee:socmed:v:75:y:2012:i:2:p:367-376. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.