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
    ---><---

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.