IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v75y2012i2p367-376.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Ann-Renée Blais & Elke U. Weber, 2006. "A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT)Scale for Adult Populations," CIRANO Working Papers 2006s-24, CIRANO.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:1:y:2006:i::p:33-47 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Loewenstein, George, 1996. "Out of Control: Visceral Influences on Behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 272-292, March.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:7:p:567-586 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Tânia Saraiva & Tiago Cruz Gonçalves, 2022. "The Role of Emotions and Knowledge on Preference for Uncertainty: Follow Your Heart but Listen to Your Brain!," Risks, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-15, December.
    4. Ivan Barreda-Tarrazona & Ainhoa Jaramillo-Gutierrez & Daniel Navarro-Martinez & Gerardo Sabater-Grande, 2014. "The role of forgone opportunities in decision making under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 167-188, October.
    5. 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.
    6. Melissa L. Finucane & Joan L. Holup, 2006. "Risk as Value: Combining Affect and Analysis in Risk Judgments," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 141-164, March.
    7. Ellen M. Peters & Burt Burraston & C. K. Mertz, 2004. "An Emotion‐Based Model of Risk Perception and Stigma Susceptibility: Cognitive Appraisals of Emotion, Affective Reactivity, Worldviews, and Risk Perceptions in the Generation of Technological Stigma," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1349-1367, October.
    8. Lillemo, Shuling Chen, 2014. "Measuring the effect of procrastination and environmental awareness on households' energy-saving behaviours: An empirical approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 249-256.
    9. Bryce, Cormac & Dowling, Michael & Lucey, Brian, 2020. "The journal quality perception gap," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    10. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    11. 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).
    12. Kang, Min Jung & Park, Heejun, 2011. "Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3465-3475, June.
    13. Mattauch, Linus & Hepburn, Cameron & Stern, Nicholas, 2018. "Pigou pushes preferences: decarbonisation and endogenous values," INET Oxford Working Papers 2018-16, Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford.
    14. Branden B. Johnson, 2017. "Explaining Americans’ responses to dread epidemics: an illustration with Ebola in late 2014," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(10), pages 1338-1357, October.
    15. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    16. Pablo Brañas‐Garza & Matteo M. Galizzi & Jeroen Nieboer, 2018. "Experimental And Self‐Reported Measures Of Risk Taking And Digit Ratio (2d:4d): Evidence From A Large, Systematic Study," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 59(3), pages 1131-1157, August.
    17. Thomas Deroche & Yannick Stephan & Tim Woodman & Christine Le Scanff, 2012. "Psychological Mediators of the Sport Injury—Perceived Risk Relationship," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 113-121, January.
    18. Pam A. Mueller & Lawrence M. Solan & John M. Darley, 2012. "When Does Knowledge Become Intent? Perceiving the Minds of Wrongdoers," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 859-892, December.
    19. Steven J. Stanton & Crystal Reeck & Scott A. Huettel & Kevin S. LaBar, 2014. "Effects of induced moods on economic choices," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(2), pages 167-175, March.
    20. Mateus Joffily & David Masclet & Charles N Noussair & Marie Claire Villeval, 2014. "Emotions, Sanctions, and Cooperation," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 80(4), pages 1002-1027, April.

    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.