IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v27y2007i2p189-202.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patients Derogate Physicians Who Use a Computer-Assisted Diagnostic Aid

Author

Listed:
  • Hal R. Arkes

    (Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, arkes.1@osu.edu)

  • Victoria A. Shaffer

    (Department of Psychology, Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas)

  • Mitchell A. Medow

    (Division of General Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio)

Abstract

Objective . To ascertain whether a physician who uses a computer-assisted diagnostic support system (DSS) would be rated less capable than a physician who does not. Method . Students assumed the role of a patient with a possible ankle fracture (experiment 1) or a possible deep vein thrombosis (experiment 2). They read a scenario that described an interaction with a physician who used no DSS, one who used an unspecified DSS, or one who used a DSS developed at a prestigious medical center. Participants were then asked to rate the interaction on 5 criteria, the most important of which was the diagnostic ability of the physician. In experiment 3, 74 patients in the waiting room of a clinic were randomly assigned to the same 3 types of groups as used in experiment 1. In experiment 4, 131 3rd- and 4th-year medical students read a scenario of a physician-patient interaction and were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups: the physician used no DSS, heeded the recommendation of a DSS, defied a recommendation of a DSS by treating in a less aggressive manner, or defied a recommendation of a DSS by treating in a more aggressive manner . Results . The participants always deemed the physician who used no decision aid to have the highest diagnostic ability. Conclusion . Patients may surmise that a physician who uses a DSS is not as capable as a physician who makes the diagnosis with no assistance from a DSS. Key words: decision support techniques; diagnosis computer assisted; patient satisfaction. (Med Decis Making 2007; 27: 189—202)

Suggested Citation

  • Hal R. Arkes & Victoria A. Shaffer & Mitchell A. Medow, 2007. "Patients Derogate Physicians Who Use a Computer-Assisted Diagnostic Aid," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(2), pages 189-202, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:2:p:189-202
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X06297391
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X06297391
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X06297391?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. Arkes, Hal R. & Dawes, Robyn M. & Christensen, Caryn, 1986. "Factors influencing the use of a decision rule in a probabilistic task," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 93-110, 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. Alexander Erlei & Lukas Meub, 2024. "Technological Shocks and Algorithmic Decision Aids in Credence Goods Markets," Papers 2401.17929, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    2. Palmeira, Mauricio, 2020. "Advice in the presence of external cues: The impact of conflicting judgments on perceptions of expertise," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 82-96.
    3. Tinglong Dai & Sridhar Tayur, 2022. "Designing AI‐augmented healthcare delivery systems for physician buy‐in and patient acceptance," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(12), pages 4443-4451, December.
    4. Tinglong Dai & Shubhranshu Singh, 2020. "Conspicuous by Its Absence: Diagnostic Expert Testing Under Uncertainty," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(3), pages 540-563, May.
    5. Ekaterina Jussupow & Kai Spohrer & Armin Heinzl, 2022. "Radiologists’ Usage of Diagnostic AI Systems," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 64(3), pages 293-309, June.
    6. Weber, Martin & Germann, Maximilian & Loos, Benjamin, 2018. "Trust and Delegated Investing: A Money Doctors Experiment," CEPR Discussion Papers 12984, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Chugunova, Marina & Sele, Daniela, 2022. "We and It: An interdisciplinary review of the experimental evidence on how humans interact with machines," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    8. Mahmud, Hasan & Islam, A.K.M. Najmul & Ahmed, Syed Ishtiaque & Smolander, Kari, 2022. "What influences algorithmic decision-making? A systematic literature review on algorithm aversion," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    9. Mahmud, Hasan & Islam, A.K.M. Najmul & Mitra, Ranjan Kumar, 2023. "What drives managers towards algorithm aversion and how to overcome it? Mitigating the impact of innovation resistance through technology readiness," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).

    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. Mahmud, Hasan & Islam, A.K.M. Najmul & Ahmed, Syed Ishtiaque & Smolander, Kari, 2022. "What influences algorithmic decision-making? A systematic literature review on algorithm aversion," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    2. Lawrence, Michael & Goodwin, Paul & Fildes, Robert, 2002. "Influence of user participation on DSS use and decision accuracy," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 381-392, October.
    3. Christine R. Ohlert & Barbara E. Weißenberger, 2020. "Debiasing escalation of commitment: the effectiveness of decision aids to enhance de-escalation," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 405-438, February.
    4. Glover, Steven M. & Prawitt, Douglas F. & Spilker, Brian C., 1997. "The Influence of Decision Aids on User Behavior: Implications for Knowledge Acquisition and Inappropriate Reliance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 232-255, November.
    5. Armstrong, J. Scott & Brodie, Roderick J., 1994. "Effects of portfolio planning methods on decision making: experimental results," MPRA Paper 81684, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Glenn Boyle & Gerald Ward, 2018. "Do Better Informed Investors Always Do Better? A Buyback Puzzle," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(4), pages 2137-2157, October.
    7. Benjamin Enke & Uri Gneezy & Brian Hall & David Martin & Vadim Nelidov & Theo Offerman & Jeroen van de Ven, 2020. "Cognitive Biases: Mistakes or Missing Stakes?," CESifo Working Paper Series 8168, CESifo.
    8. Shepherd, Dean A. & Zacharakis, Andrew, 2002. "Venture capitalists' expertise: A call for research into decision aids and cognitive feedback," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-20, January.
    9. Mark V. Pezzo & Stephanie P. Pezzo, 2006. "Physician Evaluation after Medical Errors: Does Having a Computer Decision Aid Help or Hurt in Hindsight?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(1), pages 48-56, January.
    10. Itzhak Ben-David & John R. Graham & Campbell R. Harvey, 2007. "Managerial Overconfidence and Corporate Policies," NBER Working Papers 13711, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Dobbs, Ian M. & Miller, Anthony D., 2009. "Experimental evidence on financial incentives, information and decision-making," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 71-89.
    12. Dutta, Sujay, 2012. "Vulnerability to Low-Price Signals: An Experimental Study of the Effectiveness of Genuine and Deceptive Signals," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 156-167.
    13. Anna Bassi & Kenneth C. Williams, 2014. "Examining Monotonicity and Saliency Using Level- k Reasoning in a Voting Game," Games, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-27, February.
    14. Hirshleifer, David & Teoh, Siew Hong, 2003. "Limited attention, information disclosure, and financial reporting," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1-3), pages 337-386, December.
    15. Yael Karlinsky-Shichor & Oded Netzer, 2024. "Automating the B2B Salesperson Pricing Decisions: A Human-Machine Hybrid Approach," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(1), pages 138-157, January.
    16. Bonner, Sarah E. & Sprinkle, Geoffrey B., 2002. "The effects of monetary incentives on effort and task performance: theories, evidence, and a framework for research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(4-5), pages 303-345.
    17. Ferdinand Vieider, 2011. "Separating real incentives and accountability," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(4), pages 507-518, November.
    18. Lawrence, Michael & Sim, William, 1999. "Prototyping a financial DSS," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 445-450, August.
    19. Gomaa, Mohamed I. & Hunton, James E. & Vaassen, Eddy H.J. & Carree, Martin A., 2011. "Decision aid reliance: Modeling the effects of decision aid reliability and pressures to perform on reliance behavior," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 206-224.
    20. Ritov, Ilana & Baron, Jonathan, 1999. "Protected Values and Omission Bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 79-94, August.

    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:27:y:2007:i:2:p:189-202. 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.