IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v34y2014i2p258-269.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Surrogate Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Renato Frey
  • Ralph Hertwig
  • Stefan M. Herzog

Abstract

Objective . Making surrogate decisions on behalf of incapacitated patients can raise difficult questions for relatives, physicians, and society. Previous research has focused on the accuracy of surrogate decisions (i.e., the proportion of correctly inferred preferences). Less attention has been paid to the procedural satisfaction that patients’ surrogates and patients attribute to specific approaches to making surrogate decisions. The objective was to investigate hypothetical patients’ and surrogates’ procedural satisfaction with specific approaches to making surrogate decisions and whether implementing these preferences would lead to tradeoffs between procedural satisfaction and accuracy. Methods . Study 1 investigated procedural satisfaction by assigning participants (618 in a mixed-age but relatively young online sample and 50 in an older offline sample) to the roles of hypothetical surrogates or patients. Study 2 (involving 64 real multigenerational families with a total of 253 participants) investigated accuracy using 24 medical scenarios. Results . Hypothetical patients and surrogates had closely aligned preferences: Procedural satisfaction was highest with a patient-designated surrogate, followed by shared surrogate decision-making approaches and legally assigned surrogates. These approaches did not differ substantially in accuracy. Limitations are that participants’ preferences regarding existing and novel approaches to making surrogate decisions can only be elicited under hypothetical conditions. Conclusions . Next to decision making by patient-designated surrogates, shared surrogate decision making is the preferred approach among patients and surrogates alike. This approach appears to impose no tradeoff between procedural satisfaction and accuracy. Therefore, shared decision making should be further studied in representative samples of the general population, and if people’s preferences prove to be robust, they deserve to be weighted more strongly in legal frameworks in addition to patient-designated surrogates.

Suggested Citation

  • Renato Frey & Ralph Hertwig & Stefan M. Herzog, 2014. "Surrogate Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(2), pages 258-269, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:34:y:2014:i:2:p:258-269
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X12471729
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X12471729
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X12471729?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. Richard P. Larrick & Jack B. Soll, 2006. "Erratum--Intuitions About Combining Opinions: Misappreciation of the Averaging Principle," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 309-310, February.
    2. Harvey, Nigel & Fischer, Ilan, 1997. "Taking Advice: Accepting Help, Improving Judgment, and Sharing Responsibility," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 117-133, May.
    3. Daniel Berend & Luba Sapir, 2007. "Monotonicity in Condorcet’s Jury Theorem with dependent voters," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 28(3), pages 507-528, April.
    4. Richard P. Larrick & Jack B. Soll, 2006. "Intuitions About Combining Opinions: Misappreciation of the Averaging Principle," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(1), pages 111-127, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Gino, Francesca, 2008. "Do we listen to advice just because we paid for it? The impact of advice cost on its use," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 234-245, November.
    2. Alison Wood Brooks & Francesca Gino & Maurice E. Schweitzer, 2015. "Smart People Ask for (My) Advice: Seeking Advice Boosts Perceptions of Competence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1421-1435, June.
    3. Ilan Yaniv & Shoham Choshen-Hillel, 2012. "When guessing what another person would say is better than giving your own opinion: Using perspective-taking to improve advice-taking," Discussion Paper Series dp622, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    4. Irene Scopelliti & Carey K. Morewedge & Erin McCormick & H. Lauren Min & Sophie Lebrecht & Karim S. Kassam, 2015. "Bias Blind Spot: Structure, Measurement, and Consequences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(10), pages 2468-2486, October.
    5. Johannes Müller-Trede & Shoham Choshen-Hillel & Meir Barneron & Ilan Yaniv, 2018. "The Wisdom of Crowds in Matters of Taste," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(4), pages 1779-1803, April.
    6. Kausel, Edgar E. & Culbertson, Satoris S. & Leiva, Pedro I. & Slaughter, Jerel E. & Jackson, Alexander T., 2015. "Too arrogant for their own good? Why and when narcissists dismiss advice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 33-50.
    7. Albert E. Mannes, 2009. "Are We Wise About the Wisdom of Crowds? The Use of Group Judgments in Belief Revision," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(8), pages 1267-1279, August.
    8. Leiby, Justin, 2018. "The role of consultants and management prestige in management control system adoption," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 1-13.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:3:p:265-276 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Tomás Lejarraga & Johannes Müller-Trede, 2017. "When Experience Meets Description: How Dyads Integrate Experiential and Descriptive Information in Risky Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(6), pages 1953-1971, June.
    11. Rader, Christina A. & Soll, Jack B. & Larrick, Richard P., 2015. "Pushing away from representative advice: Advice taking, anchoring, and adjustment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 26-43.
    12. Jack B. Soll & Asa B. Palley & Christina A. Rader, 2022. "The Bad Thing About Good Advice: Understanding When and How Advice Exacerbates Overconfidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 2949-2969, April.
    13. Yoon, Haewon & Scopelliti, Irene & Morewedge, Carey K., 2021. "Decision making can be improved through observational learning," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 155-188.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:4:p:401-415 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Soll, Jack B. & Mannes, Albert E., 2011. "Judgmental aggregation strategies depend on whether the self is involved," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 81-102.
    16. Johannes Müller-Trede & Shoham Choshen-Hillel & Meir Barneron & Ilan Yaniv, 2017. "The Wisdom of Crowds in Matters of Taste," Discussion Paper Series dp709, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    17. Soll, Jack B. & Mannes, Albert E., 2011. "Judgmental aggregation strategies depend on whether the self is involved," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 81-102, January.
    18. Yaniv, Ilan & Milyavsky, Maxim, 2007. "Using advice from multiple sources to revise and improve judgments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 104-120, May.
    19. Mandy Hütter & Fabian Ache, 2016. "Seeking advice: A sampling approach to advice taking," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(4), pages 401-415, July.
    20. Philipp Ecken & Richard Pibernik, 2016. "Hit or Miss: What Leads Experts to Take Advice for Long-Term Judgments?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(7), pages 2002-2021, July.
    21. Peter Bednarik & Thomas Schultze, 2015. "The effectiveness of imperfect weighting in advice taking," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(3), pages 265-276, May.
    22. See, Kelly E. & Morrison, Elizabeth W. & Rothman, Naomi B. & Soll, Jack B., 2011. "The detrimental effects of power on confidence, advice taking, and accuracy," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 272-285.

    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:34:y:2014:i:2:p:258-269. 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.