IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v42y2022i6p741-754.html

Supporting Health and Medical Decision Making: Findings and Insights from Fuzzy-Trace Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Valerie F. Reyna

    (Human Neuroscience Institute and Center for Behavioral Economics and Decision Research, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA)

  • Sarah Edelson

    (Human Neuroscience Institute and Center for Behavioral Economics and Decision Research, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA)

  • Bridget Hayes

    (Human Neuroscience Institute and Center for Behavioral Economics and Decision Research, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA)

  • David Garavito

    (Human Neuroscience Institute and Center for Behavioral Economics and Decision Research, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA)

Abstract

Theory—understanding mental processes that drive decisions—is important to help patients and providers make decisions that reflect medical advances and personal values. Building on a 2008 review, we summarize current tenets of fuzzy-trace theory (FTT) in light of new evidence that provides insight regarding mental representations of options and how such representations connect to values and evoke emotions. We discuss implications for communicating risks, preventing risky behaviors, discouraging misinformation, and choosing appropriate treatments. Findings suggest that simple, fuzzy but meaningful gist representations of information often determine decisions. Within minutes of conversing with their doctor, reading a health-related web post, or processing other health information, patients rely on gist memories of that information rather than verbatim details. This fuzzy-processing preference explains puzzles and paradoxes in how patients (and sometimes providers) think about probabilities (e.g., “50-50†chance), outcomes of treatment (e.g., with antibiotics), experiences of pain, end-of-life decisions, memories for medication instructions, symptoms of concussion, and transmission of viruses (e.g., in AIDS and COVID-19). As examples, participation in clinical trials or seeking treatments with low probabilities of success (e.g., with antibiotics or at the end of life) may indicate a defensibly different categorical gist perspective on risk as opposed to simply misunderstanding probabilities or failing to make prescribed tradeoffs. Thus, FTT explains why people avoid precise tradeoffs despite computing them. Facilitating gist representations of information offers an alternative approach that goes beyond providing uninterpreted “neutral†facts versus persuading or shifting the balance between fast versus slow thinking (or emotion vs. cognition). In contrast to either taking mental shortcuts or deliberating about details, gist processing facilitates application of advanced knowledge and deeply held values to choices. Highlights Fuzzy-trace theory (FTT) supports practical approaches to improving health and medicine. FTT differs in important respects from other theories of decision making, which has implications for how to help patients, providers, and health communicators. Gist mental representations emphasize categorical distinctions, reflect understanding in context, and help cue values relevant to health and patient care. Understanding the science behind theory is crucial for evidence-based medicine.

Suggested Citation

  • Valerie F. Reyna & Sarah Edelson & Bridget Hayes & David Garavito, 2022. "Supporting Health and Medical Decision Making: Findings and Insights from Fuzzy-Trace Theory," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(6), pages 741-754, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:6:p:741-754
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X221105473
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X221105473
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X221105473?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. Valerie F. Reyna, 2008. "A Theory of Medical Decision Making and Health: Fuzzy Trace Theory," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(6), pages 850-865, November.
    2. David V. Budescu & Han-Hui Por & Stephen B. Broomell & Michael Smithson, 2014. "The interpretation of IPCC probabilistic statements around the world," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 4(6), pages 508-512, June.
    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. R Constance Wiener & Christopher Waters & Ruchi Bhandari, 2024. "A theory of oral healthcare decision-making in Appalachia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(5), pages 1-11, 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. David R. Mandel & Daniel Irwin, 2021. "Tracking accuracy of strategic intelligence forecasts: Findings from a long‐term Canadian study," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(3-4), September.
    2. Volker Thoma & Elliott White & Asha Panigrahi & Vanessa Strowger & Irina Anderson, 2015. "Good Thinking or Gut Feeling? Cognitive Reflection and Intuition in Traders, Bankers and Financial Non-Experts," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, April.
    3. repec:plo:pone00:0232198 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Gabriella Passerini & Laura Macchi & Maria Bagassi, 2012. "A methodological approach to ratio bias," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(5), pages 602-617, September.
    5. Yasmina Okan & Eric R. Stone & Jonathan Parillo & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Andrew M. Parker, 2020. "Probability Size Matters: The Effect of Foreground‐Only versus Foreground+Background Graphs on Risk Aversion Diminishes with Larger Probabilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 771-788, April.
    6. Mehdi Mourali & Zhiyong Yang, 2023. "Misperception of Multiple Risks in Medical Decision-Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 50(1), pages 25-47.
    7. Pace, Davide D. & Imai, Taisuke & Schwardmann, Peter & van der Weele, Joël J., 2025. "Uncertainty about carbon impact and the willingness to avoid CO2 emissions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    8. Michael D. Gerst & Melissa A. Kenney & Irina Feygina, 2021. "Improving the usability of climate indicator visualizations through diagnostic design principles," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(3), pages 1-22, June.
    9. Ville A. Satopää, 2022. "Regularized Aggregation of One-Off Probability Predictions," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 70(6), pages 3558-3580, November.
    10. Swait, J. & de Bekker-Grob, E.W., 2022. "A discrete choice model implementing gist-based categorization of alternatives, with applications to patient preferences for cancer screening and treatment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    11. Xia, Weifeng & Ruan, Zhiyu & Ma, Shenglin & Zhao, Jin & Yan, Jiale, 2025. "Can the digital economy enhance carbon emission efficiency? Evidence from 269 cities in China," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    12. Peter H. Schwartz & Kieran C. O’Doherty & Colene Bentley & Karen K. Schmidt & Michael M. Burgess, 2021. "Layperson Views about the Design and Evaluation of Decision Aids: A Public Deliberation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(5), pages 527-539, July.
    13. Timmons, Shane & Lunn, Pete, 2022. "Public understanding of climate change and support for mitigation," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number RS135.
    14. Rasa Kanapickiene & Deimante Teresiene & Daiva Budriene & Greta Keliuotytė-Staniulėnienė & Jekaterina Kartasova, 2020. "The Impact Of Covid-19 On European Financial Markets And Economic Sentiment," Economy & Business Journal, International Scientific Publications, Bulgaria, vol. 14(1), pages 144-163.
    15. Eric R. Stone & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Abigail M. Wilkins & Emily M. Boker & Jacqueline MacDonald Gibson, 2017. "Designing Graphs to Communicate Risks: Understanding How the Choice of Graphical Format Influences Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 612-628, April.
    16. Heard, Claire Louise & Rakow, Tim, 2022. "Examining insensitivity to probability in evidence‐based communication of relative risks: the role of affect and communication format," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 113810, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Bonnie Spring, 2008. "Health Decision Making: Lynchpin of Evidence-Based Practice," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(6), pages 866-874, November.
    18. Mike Farjam & Olexandr Nikolaychuk & Giangiacomo Bravo, 2019. "Investing into climate change mitigation despite the risk of failure," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 154(3), pages 453-460, June.
    19. Kevin E. Tiede & Wolfgang Gaissmaier, 2023. "How Do People Process Different Representations of Statistical Information? Insights into Cognitive Effort, Representational Inconsistencies, and Individual Differences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(7-8), pages 803-820, October.
    20. 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.
    21. Ville A. Satopää & Marat Salikhov & Philip E. Tetlock & Barbara Mellers, 2021. "Bias, Information, Noise: The BIN Model of Forecasting," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(12), pages 7599-7618, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:42:y:2022:i:6:p:741-754. 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.