IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v35y2015i4p539-557.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cognitive Biases and Heuristics in Medical Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • J. S. Blumenthal-Barby
  • Heather Krieger

Abstract

Background. The role of cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making is of growing interest. The purpose of this study was to determine whether studies on cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making are based on actual or hypothetical decisions and are conducted with populations that are representative of those who typically make the medical decision; to categorize the types of cognitive biases and heuristics found and whether they are found in patients or in medical personnel; and to critically review the studies based on standard methodological quality criteria. Method. Data sources were original, peer-reviewed, empirical studies on cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making found in Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, and the CINAHL databases published in 1980–2013. Predefined exclusion criteria were used to identify 213 studies. During data extraction, information was collected on type of bias or heuristic studied, respondent population, decision type, study type (actual or hypothetical), study method, and study conclusion. Results. Of the 213 studies analyzed, 164 (77%) were based on hypothetical vignettes, and 175 (82%) were conducted with representative populations. Nineteen types of cognitive biases and heuristics were found. Only 34% of studies ( n = 73) investigated medical personnel, and 68% ( n = 145) confirmed the presence of a bias or heuristic. Each methodological quality criterion was satisfied by more than 50% of the studies, except for sample size and validated instruments/questions. Limitations are that existing terms were used to inform search terms, and study inclusion criteria focused strictly on decision making. Conclusions. Most of the studies on biases and heuristics in medical decision making are based on hypothetical vignettes, raising concerns about applicability of these findings to actual decision making. Biases and heuristics have been underinvestigated in medical personnel compared with patients.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:35:y:2015:i:4:p:539-557
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X14547740
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X14547740
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X14547740?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. Facione, Noreen C. & Facione, Peter A., 2006. "The cognitive structuring of patient delay in breast cancer," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(12), pages 3137-3149, December.
    2. Cheryl L L Carling & Doris Tove Kristoffersen & Victor M Montori & Jeph Herrin & Holger J Schünemann & Shaun Treweek & Elie A Akl & Andrew D Oxman, 2009. "The Effect of Alternative Summary Statistics for Communicating Risk Reduction on Decisions about Taking Statins: A Randomized Trial," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(8), pages 1-10, August.
    3. Bornstein, Brian H. & Christine Emler, A. & Chapman, Gretchen B., 1999. "Rationality in medical treatment decisions: is there a sunk-cost effect?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 215-222, July.
    4. Dillard, Amanda J. & Fagerlin, Angela & Cin, Sonya Dal & Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J. & Ubel, Peter A., 2010. "Narratives that address affective forecasting errors reduce perceived barriers to colorectal cancer screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 45-52, July.
    5. Brown, Roger L. & Baumann, Linda J. & Helberg, Clay P. & Han, Youngshook & Fontana, Susan A. & Love, Richard R., 1996. "The simultaneous analysis of patient, physician and group practice influences on annual mammography performance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 315-324, August.
    6. Blumenschein, Karen & Johannesson, Magnus, 1998. "An experimental test of question framing in health state utility assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 187-193, September.
    7. Oliver, Adam, 2004. "Testing the internal consistency of the standard gamble in 'success' and 'failure' frames," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(11), pages 2219-2229, June.
    8. G. Salkeld & M. Ryan & L. Short, 2000. "The veil of experience: do consumers prefer what they know best?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(3), pages 267-270, April.
    9. Baron, Jonathan & Ritov, Ilana, 1994. "Reference Points and Omission Bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 475-498, September.
    10. 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.
    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. Tatiana Andia & César Mantilla & Paul Rodríguez-Lesmes & Leonel Criado & Juan Sebastián Gómez & Santiago Ortiz & Andrea Quintero & Ferley Rincón & Steffanny Romero, 2020. "Information and symptoms assessment in community pharmacies during the COVID-19 pandemic: An audit study in Colombia," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 4(S2), pages 5-14, December.
    2. Gigi Foster, 2018. "Towards a living theoretical spine for (behavioural) economics," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 2(1), pages 75-81, March.
    3. Andia, Tatiana & Mantilla, Cesar & Rodriguez-Lesmes, Paul & Criado, Leonel & Gomez, Juan Sebastian & Ortiz, Santiago & Quintero, Andrea & Rincón, Heiner & Romero, Steffanny, 2020. "Mentioning anosmia improves how community pharmacies handle phone call requests during the COVID-19 pandemic: An audit study in Colombia," SocArXiv s2z47, Center for Open Science.
    4. Takashi Watari & Yasuharu Tokuda & Yu Amano & Kazumichi Onigata & Hideyuki Kanda, 2022. "Cognitive Bias and Diagnostic Errors among Physicians in Japan: A Self-Reflection Survey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-11, April.
    5. Carminati, Lara, 2020. "Behavioural Economics and Human Decision Making: Instances from the Health Care System," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(6), pages 659-664.
    6. Kovacs, Roxanne J. & Lagarde, Mylene & Cairns, John, 2020. "Overconfident health workers provide lower quality healthcare," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    7. Belardinelli, Paolo & Bellé, Nicola & Cantarelli, Paola, 2021. "The impact of bounded subadditivity on administrative behaviour among public and private workers," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 110449, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Mehmet Eren Ahsen & Mehmet Ulvi Saygi Ayvaci & Srinivasan Raghunathan, 2019. "When Algorithmic Predictions Use Human-Generated Data: A Bias-Aware Classification Algorithm for Breast Cancer Diagnosis," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(1), pages 97-116, March.
    9. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Apreda, Riccardo & Fantoni, Gualtiero, 2020. "Expert biases in technology foresight. Why they are a problem and how to mitigate them," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(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. Joanna Coast & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Eileen J. Sutton & Susan A. Horrocks & A. Jane Vosper & Dawn R. Swancutt & Terry N. Flynn, 2012. "Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 730-741, June.
    2. Inman, J.J. & Zeelenberg, M., 2002. "Regret in repeat purchase versus switching decisions : The attenuating role of decision justifiability," Other publications TiSEM 44060120-bd30-40e0-a97f-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. James C. Cox & Maroš Servátka & Radovan Vadovic, 2012. "Status Quo Effects in Fairness Games: Reciprocal Responses to Acts of Commission vs. Acts of Omission," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2012-03, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, revised Mar 2016.
    4. Gerald J. Pruckner & Thomas Schober & Katrin Zocher, 2020. "The company you keep: health behavior among work peers," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(2), pages 251-259, March.
    5. Neuman, Einat & Neuman, Shoshana, 2006. "Explorations of the Effect of Experience on Preferences: Two Health-Care Case Studies," IZA Discussion Papers 2028, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Heather P. Lacey & Steven C. Lacey & Prerna Dayal & Caroline Forest & Dana Blasi, 2023. "Context Matters: Emotional Sensitivity to Probabilities and the Bias for Action in Cancer Treatment Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(4), pages 417-429, May.
    7. Unger-Saldaña, Karla & Infante-Castañeda, Claudia B., 2011. "Breast cancer delay: A grounded model of help-seeking behaviour," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(7), pages 1096-1104, April.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:3:p:287-296 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Vermeulen, Bart & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2008. "Models and optimal designs for conjoint choice experiments including a no-choice option," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 94-103.
    10. Manja Gärtner & Anna Sandberg, 2017. "Is there an omission effect in prosocial behavior? A laboratory experiment on passive vs. active generosity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-21, March.
    11. Nagpal, Anish & Lei, Jing & Khare, Adwait, 2015. "To Choose or to Reject: The Effect of Decision Frame on Food Customization Decisions," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 422-435.
    12. Davood Bayat & Hadi Mohamadpour & Huihua Fang & Pengfei Xu & Frank Krueger, 2023. "The Impact of Order Effects on the Framing of Trust and Reciprocity Behaviors," Games, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-14, February.
    13. Andor, Mark A. & Osberghaus, Daniel & Simora, Michael, 2020. "Natural Disasters and Governmental Aid: Is there a Charity Hazard?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    14. Ahmad Barirani & Randolph Sloof & Mirjam van Praag, 2017. "The Origins and Extent of Entrepreneurial Action-Orientedness: An Experimental Study," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 17-006/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    15. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:7:p:593-601 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Meier Stephan, 2005. "Does Framing Matter for Conditional Cooperation? Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-21, December.
    17. Christopher Shallow & Rumen Iliev & Douglas Medin, 2011. "Trolley problems in context," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(7), pages 593-601, October.
    18. Rachel Milte & Julie Ratcliffe & Gang Chen & Michelle Miller & Maria Crotty, 2018. "Taste, choice and timing: Investigating resident and carer preferences for meals in aged care homes," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 116-124, March.
    19. Punel, Aymeric & Stathopoulos, Amanda, 2017. "Modeling the acceptability of crowdsourced goods deliveries: Role of context and experience effects," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 18-38.
    20. Chen, Yenming J. & Sheu, Jiuh-Biing, 2017. "Non-differentiated green product positioning: Roles of uncertainty and rationality," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 248-260.
    21. Campbell Pryor & Amy Perfors & Piers D L Howe, 2019. "Conformity to the descriptive norms of people with opposing political or social beliefs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-16, July.
    22. Zeelenberg, M. & van Dijk, W.W. & Manstead, A.S.R., 1998. "Reconsidering the relation between regret and responsibility," Other publications TiSEM fa17bcac-aab0-4f37-8183-5, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.

    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:35:y:2015:i:4:p:539-557. 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.