IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v24y2004i3p265-271.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Numerical Statements of Risk on Trust and Comfort with Hypothetical Physician Risk Communication

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea D. Gurmankin

    (Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, Rutgers University, New Jersey)

  • Jonathan Baron

    (Psychology Department, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia)

  • Katrina Armstrong

    (Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Division of General Internal Medicine and Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia)

Abstract

Objective . To contribute to the debate about whether numeric statements of risk ought to be included in risk communications. Design . Subjects ( n = 115) completed a questionnaire involving a physician risk communication and 4 scenarios, each of which described a patient with symptoms and signs potentially suggestive of cancer. Each scenario was presented in 3 risk communication versions (a verbal version and 2 numeric versions) in a within-subject 4 × 3 design. Subjects rated their trust in and comfort with the information and their belief that the physician distorted their risk level. Results . Subjects were significantly more trusting of ( t =4.0, P

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea D. Gurmankin & Jonathan Baron & Katrina Armstrong, 2004. "The Effect of Numerical Statements of Risk on Trust and Comfort with Hypothetical Physician Risk Communication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(3), pages 265-271, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:24:y:2004:i:3:p:265-271
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X04265482
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X04265482
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X04265482?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gamble, V.N., 1997. "Under the Shadow of Tuskegee: African Americans and Health Care," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 87(11), pages 1773-1778.
    2. Erev, Ido & Cohen, Brent L., 1990. "Verbal versus numerical probabilities: Efficiency, biases, and the preference paradox," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 1-18, February.
    3. Michael Birnbaum, 2000. "Psychological experiments on the internet," Framed Field Experiments 00125, The Field Experiments Website.
    4. Isaac M. Lipkus & Greg Samsa & Barbara K. Rimer, 2001. "General Performance on a Numeracy Scale among Highly Educated Samples," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 37-44, February.
    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. Wändi Bruine De Bruin & Ümit Güvenç & Baruch Fischhoff & Christopher M. Armstrong & Denise Caruso, 2009. "Communicating About Xenotransplantation: Models and Scenarios," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(8), pages 1105-1115, August.
    2. V.H.M. Visschers & P.M. Wiedemann & H. Gutscher & S. Kurzenhäuser & R. Seidl & C.G. Jardine & D.R.M. Timmermans, 2012. "Affect-inducing risk communication: current knowledge and future directions," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 257-271, March.
    3. Carissa Bonner & Lyndal J. Trevena & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Paul K. J. Han & Yasmina Okan & Elissa Ozanne & Ellen Peters & Daniëlle Timmermans & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2021. "Current Best Practice for Presenting Probabilities in Patient Decision Aids: Fundamental Principles," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 821-833, October.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:1:p:34-40 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Nathan F. Dieckmann & Ellen Peters & Robin Gregory & Martin Tusler, 2012. "Making sense of uncertainty: advantages and disadvantages of providing an evaluative structure," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(7), pages 717-735, August.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:2:p:116-123 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Peder A. Halvorsen, 2010. "What Information Do Patients Need to Make a Medical Decision?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5_suppl), pages 11-13, September.
    8. Gretchen B. Chapman & Jingjing Liu, 2009. "Numeracy, frequency, and Bayesian reasoning," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(1), pages 34-40, February.
    9. Bana e Costa, Carlos A. & Lourenço, João C. & Chagas, Manuel P. & Bana e Costa, João C., 2007. "Development of reusable bid evaluation models for the Portugese Electric Transmission Company," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 22697, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Yaniv Hanoch & Talya Miron-Shatz & Mary Himmelstein, 2010. "Genetic testing and risk interpretation: How do women understand lifetime risk results?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(2), pages 116-123, April.
    11. Carlos A. Bana e Costa & João C. Lourenço & Manuel P. Chagas & João C. Bana e Costa, 2008. "Development of Reusable Bid Evaluation Models for the Portuguese Electric Transmission Company," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 5(1), pages 22-42, March.
    12. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim W. F. Passchier & Nanne N. K. De Vries, 2009. "Probability Information in Risk Communication: A Review of the Research Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 267-287, February.
    13. Fasolo, Barbara & Bana e Costa, Carlos A., 2014. "Tailoring value elicitation to decision makers' numeracy and fluency: Expressing value judgments in numbers or words," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 83-90.
    14. Brandon Garrett & Gregory Mitchell, 2013. "How Jurors Evaluate Fingerprint Evidence: The Relative Importance of Match Language, Method Information, and Error Acknowledgment," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(3), pages 484-511, September.
    15. Gary E. Bolton & Elena Katok & Tobias Stangl, 2022. "Failures in the communication of risk: Decisions and numeracy," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(12), pages 4616-4627, December.

    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. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:363-393 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Andrea D. Gurmankin & Jonathan Baron & Katrina Armstrong, 2004. "Intended Message Versus Message Received in Hypothetical Physician Risk Communications: Exploring the Gap," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1337-1347, October.
    3. David R. Mandel & Daniel Irwin, 2021. "Facilitating sender-receiver agreement in communicated probabilities: Is it best to use words, numbers or both?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(2), pages 363-393, March.
    4. Teigen, Karl Halvor & Juanchich, Marie & Løhre, Erik, 2022. "What is a “likely” amount? Representative (modal) values are considered likely even when their probabilities are low," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    5. Fasolo, Barbara & Bana e Costa, Carlos A., 2014. "Tailoring value elicitation to decision makers' numeracy and fluency: Expressing value judgments in numbers or words," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 83-90.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:1:p:34-40 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Fuchsman, Dillon & McGee, Josh B. & Zamarro, Gema, 2023. "Teachers’ willingness to pay for retirement benefits: A national stated preferences experiment," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    8. Fuchsman, Dillon & McGee, Josh & Zamarro, Gema, 2022. "Teachers’ Knowledge and Preparedness for Retirement: Results from a Nationally Representative Teacher Survey," Working Papers 21-5, Sinquefield Center for Applied Economic Research, Saint Louis University.
    9. Theresa Kuchler & Basit Zafar, 2019. "Personal Experiences and Expectations about Aggregate Outcomes," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 74(5), pages 2491-2542, October.
    10. Jean-Marc Bourgeon & José de Sousa & Alexis Noir-Luhalwe, 2022. "Social Distancing and Risk Taking: Evidence from a Team Game Show [Distanciation sociale et prise de risque : Les résultats d'un jeu d'équipe]," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03792423, HAL.
    11. Yaniv Hanoch & Talya Miron-Shatz & Mary Himmelstein, 2010. "Genetic testing and risk interpretation: How do women understand lifetime risk results?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(2), pages 116-123, April.
    12. Ralph Stevens & Jennifer Alonso Garcia & Hazel Bateman & Arthur van Soest & Johan Bonekamp, 2022. "Saving preferences after retirement," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/342267, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    13. Zev J. Eigen, 2012. "When and Why Individuals Obey Contracts: Experimental Evidence of Consent, Compliance, Promise, and Performance," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(1), pages 67-93.
    14. Cathy Anne Pinto & Gin Nie Chua & John F. P. Bridges & Ella Brookes & Johanna Hyacinthe & Tommi Tervonen, 2022. "Comparing Patient Preferences for Antithrombotic Treatment During the Acute and Chronic Phases of Myocardial Infarction: A Discrete-Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(2), pages 255-266, March.
    15. Atanasov, Pavel & Witkowski, Jens & Ungar, Lyle & Mellers, Barbara & Tetlock, Philip, 2020. "Small steps to accuracy: Incremental belief updaters are better forecasters," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 19-35.
    16. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:5:p:441-448 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Amelia S Knopf & Peter Krombach & Amy J Katz & Rebecca Baker & Gregory Zimet, 2021. "Measuring research mistrust in adolescents and adults: Validity and reliability of an adapted version of the Group-Based Medical Mistrust Scale," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-9, January.
    18. R. Luce & A. Marley, 2005. "Ranked Additive Utility Representations of Gambles: Old and New Axiomatizations," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 21-62, January.
    19. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. DeVries, 2007. "How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 715-727, June.
    20. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:2:p:152-158 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:3:p:234-279 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Diego Fernandez-Duque & Timothy Wifall, 2007. "Actor/observer asymmetry in risky decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 1-8, February.
    23. Hazel Bateman & Christine Eckert & Fedor Iskhakov & Jordan Louviere & Stephen Satchell & Susan Thorp, 2017. "Default and naive diversification heuristics in annuity choice," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 42(1), pages 32-57, February.
    24. Thorp, S. & Bateman, H. & Dobrescu, L.I. & Newell, B.R. & Ortmann, A., 2020. "Flicking the switch: Simplifying disclosure to improve retirement plan choices," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    25. Allen, Jennifer D. & Kennedy, Mark & Wilson-Glover, Athene & Gilligan, Timothy D., 2007. "African-American men's perceptions about prostate cancer: Implications for designing educational interventions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(11), pages 2189-2200, June.

    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:sae:medema:v:24:y:2004:i:3:p:265-271. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.