IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v45y2025i7p892-903.html

An Experimental Investigation of Treatment Decisions under Ambiguity and Conflict

Author

Listed:
  • Yiyun Shou

    (School of Medicine and Psychology, The Australian National University, Australia
    Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore and National University Health System, Singapore
    Lloyd’s Register Foundation Institute for the Public Understanding of Risk, National University of Singapore, Singapore)

  • Amelia Gulliver

    (Centre for Mental Health Research, National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, The Australian National University, Australia)

  • Louise M Farrer

    (Centre for Mental Health Research, National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, The Australian National University, Australia)

  • Amy Dawel

    (School of Medicine and Psychology, The Australian National University, Australia)

  • Eryn Newman

    (School of Medicine and Psychology, The Australian National University, Australia)

  • Michael Smithson

    (School of Medicine and Psychology, The Australian National University, Australia)

Abstract

Introduction Effective risk communication is essential for medical professionals to assist patients to make informed decisions. However, risk communication can be challenging as patients receive ambiguous and conflicting information. Objectives This study aimed to examine how uncertainty influences individuals’ perceptions and preferences and interacts with message framing in a medical treatment decision scenario. Methods The present study included a large representative sample of Australians ( N = 805). A randomized experiment was conducted presenting a scenario about hypothetical COVID-19 treatment alternatives with varying uncertainty and framing in treatment information. Results The results showed that conflicting information and loss framing had deleterious effects on participants’ willingness to take a treatment and trust in the sources providing the information, compared with information that was precise, ambiguous, or in a gain frame. The effects could be stronger among participants who are risk averse, anxious, and native language speakers. Conclusion The findings highlight that patients may be more averse to a treatment option and reduce their trust in medical professionals when they are provided with ambiguous information and particularly when information that conflicts with other sources including other medical professionals. It is important for medical professionals to be aware of other information patients have sourced that may conflict with information provided by the medical professionals during the consultation and to assist patients with high levels of risk aversion and anxiety in their decision making. Highlights Conflicting information and loss framing had deleterious effects on participants’ willingness to take a treatment. Conflicting information and loss framing also reduced participants’ trust in the sources of the information. The deleterious effects were stronger among participants who were native language speakers and were risk averse and anxious.

Suggested Citation

  • Yiyun Shou & Amelia Gulliver & Louise M Farrer & Amy Dawel & Eryn Newman & Michael Smithson, 2025. "An Experimental Investigation of Treatment Decisions under Ambiguity and Conflict," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 45(7), pages 892-903, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:45:y:2025:i:7:p:892-903
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X251346853
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X251346853
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X251346853?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. Viscusi, W Kip, 1997. "Alarmist Decisions with Divergent Risk Information," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(445), pages 1657-1670, November.
    2. Smithson, Michael, 1999. "Conflict Aversion: Preference for Ambiguity vs Conflict in Sources and Evidence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 179-198, September.
    3. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    4. Kocher, Martin G. & Lahno, Amrei Marie & Trautmann, Stefan T., 2018. "Ambiguity aversion is not universal," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 268-283.
    5. Laure Cabantous, 2007. "Ambiguity Aversion in the Field of Insurance: Insurers’ Attitude to Imprecise and Conflicting Probability Estimates," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 62(3), pages 219-240, May.
    6. Aurélien Baillon & Laure Cabantous & Peter Wakker, 2012. "Aggregating imprecise or conflicting beliefs: An experimental investigation using modern ambiguity theories," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 115-147, April.
    7. Jakob D. Jensen & Manusheela Pokharel & Courtney L. Scherr & Andy J. King & Natasha Brown & Christina Jones, 2017. "Communicating Uncertain Science to the Public: How Amount and Source of Uncertainty Impact Fatalism, Backlash, and Overload," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 40-51, January.
    8. Laure Cabantous & Denis Hilton & Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2011. "Is imprecise knowledge better than conflicting expertise? Evidence from insurers’ decisions in the United States," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 211-232, June.
    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. Divya Aggarwal & Pitabas Mohanty, 2022. "Influence of imprecise information on risk and ambiguity preferences: Experimental evidence," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(4), pages 1025-1038, June.
    2. Aurélien Baillon & Laure Cabantous & Peter Wakker, 2012. "Aggregating imprecise or conflicting beliefs: An experimental investigation using modern ambiguity theories," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 115-147, April.
    3. Thibault Gajdos & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2013. "Decisions with conflicting and imprecise information," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(2), pages 427-452, July.
    4. Peter, Richard & Ying, Jie, 2020. "Do you trust your insurer? Ambiguity about contract nonperformance and optimal insurance demand," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 938-954.
    5. Laure Cabantous & Denis Hilton & Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2011. "Is imprecise knowledge better than conflicting expertise? Evidence from insurers’ decisions in the United States," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 211-232, June.
    6. Jean Desrochers & J. Francois Outreville, 2013. "Uncertainty, Ambiguity and Risk Taking: an experimental investigation of consumer behavior and demand for insurance," ICER Working Papers 10-2013, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    7. Vivianne H.M. Visschers, 2017. "Judgments under uncertainty: evaluations of univocal, ambiguous and conflicting probability information," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(2), pages 237-255, February.
    8. Théodora Dupont-Courtade, 2012. "Insurance demand under ambiguity and conflict for extreme risks: Evidence from a large representative survey," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 12020, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    9. Aurélien Baillon & Zhenxing Huang & Asli Selim & Peter P. Wakker, 2018. "Measuring Ambiguity Attitudes for All (Natural) Events," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1839-1858, September.
    10. Masahide Watanabe & Toshio Fujimi, 2024. "Ambiguity attitudes toward natural and artificial sources in gain and loss domains," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 51-75, February.
    11. Thomas Barbiero & Daniele Bertolini, 2025. "Legal and Economic Determinants of Underpurchased Pollution Coverage: Lessons from Italy," Working Papers 095, Toronto Metropolitan University, Department of Economics.
    12. Huang, Rachel J. & Huang, Yi-Chieh & Tzeng, Larry Y., 2013. "Insurance bargaining under ambiguity," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 812-820.
    13. Dietz, Simon & Walker, Oliver, 2017. "Ambiguity and insurance: capital requirements andpremiums," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 68469, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Keck, Steffen & Diecidue, Enrico & Budescu, David V., 2014. "Group decisions under ambiguity: Convergence to neutrality," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 60-71.
    15. Vijay Aseervatham & Patricia Born & Dominik Lohmaier & Andreas Richter, 2017. "Hazard-Specific Supply Reactions in the Aftermath of Natural Disasters," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 42(2), pages 193-225, April.
    16. Shunzhi Pang, 2025. "Robust Insurance Pricing and Liquidity Management," Papers 2510.15709, arXiv.org.
    17. Christoph M. Rheinberger & James K. Hammitt, 2018. "Dinner with Bayes: On the revision of risk beliefs," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 253-280, December.
    18. Théodora Dupont-Courtade, 2012. "Insurance demand under ambiguity and conflict for extreme risks : Evidence from a large representative survey," Post-Print halshs-00718642, HAL.
    19. Daniela Cagno & Daniela Grieco, 2023. "Insurance Choices and Sources of Ambiguity," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 9(1), pages 295-319, March.
    20. Simon Dietz & Falk Niehörster, 2021. "Pricing ambiguity in catastrophe risk insurance," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 46(2), pages 112-132, September.

    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:45:y:2025:i:7:p:892-903. 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.