IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/61210.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Risk attitudes and personality traits predict perceptions of benefits and risks for medicinal products: a field study of European medical assessors

Author

Listed:
  • Beyer, Andrea R.
  • Fasolo, Barbara
  • de Graeff, P.A.
  • Hillege, H.L.

Abstract

Background: Risk attitudes and personality traits are known predictors of decision making among laypersons, but very little is known of their influence among experts participating in organizational decision making. Methods: Seventy-five European medical assessors were assessed in a field study using the Domain Specific Risk Taking scale and the Big Five Inventory scale. Assessors rated the risks and benefits for a mock “clinical dossier” specific to their area of expertise, and ordinal regression models were used to assess the odds of risk attitude or personality traits in predicting either the benefit or the risk ratings. Results: An increase in the “conscientiousness” score predicted an increase in the perception of the drug’s benefit, and male assessors gave higher scores for the drug’s benefit ratings than did female assessors. Extraverted assessors saw fewer risks, and assessors with a perceived neutral-averse or averse risk profile saw greater risks. Conclusions: Medical assessors perceive the benefits and risks of medicines via a complex interplay of the medical situation, their personality traits and even their gender. Further research in this area is needed to determine how these potential biases are managed within the regulatory setting.

Suggested Citation

  • Beyer, Andrea R. & Fasolo, Barbara & de Graeff, P.A. & Hillege, H.L., 2015. "Risk attitudes and personality traits predict perceptions of benefits and risks for medicinal products: a field study of European medical assessors," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 61210, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:61210
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/61210/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrea R. Beyer & Barbara Fasolo & Lawrence D. Phillips & Pieter A. de Graeff & Hans L. Hillege, 2013. "Risk Perception of Prescription Drugs," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(4), pages 579-592, May.
    2. Vogel, David, 2001. "The new politics of risk regulation in Europe," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 35984, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Elke U. Weber & Richard A. Milliman, 1997. "Perceived Risk Attitudes: Relating Risk Perception to Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(2), pages 123-144, February.
    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. L. Robin Keller & Yitong Wang, 2017. "Information Presentation in Decision and Risk Analysis: Answered, Partly Answered, and Unanswered Questions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(6), pages 1132-1145, June.
    2. Kuhnt, Jana, 2019. "Literature review: drivers of migration. Why do people leave their homes? Is there an easy answer? A structured overview of migratory determinants," IDOS Discussion Papers 9/2019, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).

    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. Lex Borghans & Angela Lee Duckworth & James J. Heckman & Bas ter Weel, 2008. "The Economics and Psychology of Personality Traits," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 43(4).
    2. Jean Spinks & Son Nghiem & Joshua Byrnes, 2021. "Risky business, healthy lives: how risk perception, risk preferences and information influence consumer’s risky health choices," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 811-831, July.
    3. Doll, Monika & Seebauer, Michael & Tonn, Maren, 2017. "Bargaining over waiting time in gain and loss framed ultimatum games," FAU Discussion Papers in Economics 15/2017, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Institute for Economics.
    4. Payzan-LeNestour, Elise & Pradier, Lionnel & Putniņš, Tālis J., 2023. "Biased risk perceptions: Evidence from the laboratory and financial markets," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    5. Heß, Moritz & Scheve, Christian von & Schupp, Jürgen & Wagner, Aiko & Wagner, Gert G., 2018. "Are Political Representatives More Risk-Loving Than the Electorate? Evidence from German Federal and State Parliaments," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 4, pages 1-7.
    6. Minogue, Martin, 2005. "Apples and Oranges: Problems in the Analysis of Comparative Regulatory Governance," Centre on Regulation and Competition (CRC) Working papers 30589, University of Manchester, Institute for Development Policy and Management (IDPM).
    7. Yuval Rottenstreich & Alex Markle & Johannes Müller-Trede, 2023. "Risky Sure Things," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(8), pages 4707-4720, August.
    8. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/5404 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Shangeetha Sukumaran & Thai Siew Bee & Shaista Wasiuzzaman, 2022. "Cryptocurrency as an Investment: The Malaysian Context," Risks, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, April.
    10. Khan, Mohammad Tariqul Islam & Tan, Siow-Hooi & Chong, Lee-Lee, 2017. "How past perceived portfolio returns affect financial behaviors—The underlying psychological mechanism," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 1478-1488.
    11. Arvid Hoffmann & Sam Henry & Nikos Kalogeras, 2013. "Aspirations as reference points: an experimental investigation of risk behavior over time," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(2), pages 193-210, August.
    12. Pellegrini, Pablo A., 2013. "What risks and for whom? Argentina's regulatory policies and global commercial interests in GMOs," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 129-138.
    13. Aloña Martiarena, 2013. "What’s so entrepreneurial about intrapreneurs?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 27-39, January.
    14. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2014-036 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Deck, Cary & Lee, Jungmin & Reyes, Javier A. & Rosen, Christopher C., 2013. "A failed attempt to explain within subject variation in risk taking behavior using domain specific risk attitudes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-24.
    16. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/5404 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. 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.
    18. Xaimarie Hernández-Cruz & Saylisse Dávila, 2020. "Quantifying adaptive capacity to floods: an assessment of Rincón, PR," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(1), pages 1537-1564, August.
    19. Tiffany Shih & Brian Wright, 2011. "Agricultural Innovation," NBER Chapters, in: Accelerating Energy Innovation: Insights from Multiple Sectors, pages 49-85, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Christine Kaufmann & Martin Weber & Emily Haisley, 2013. "The Role of Experience Sampling and Graphical Displays on One's Investment Risk Appetite," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(2), pages 323-340, July.
    21. Katarzyna Kochaniak & Paweł Ulman, 2020. "Risk-Intolerant but Risk-Taking—Towards a Better Understanding of Inconsistent Survey Responses of the Euro Area Households," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-26, August.
    22. Glynn T. Tonsor & Ted C. Schroeder & Joost M. E. Pennings, 2009. "Factors Impacting Food Safety Risk Perceptions," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 625-644, September.
    23. Qian, Qian & Feng, Hairong & Gu, Jing, 2021. "The influence of risk attitude on credit risk contagion—Perspective of information dissemination," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 582(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    benefit-risk; heuristics; individual characteristics; risk attitude; risk perception;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J50 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor-Management Relations, Trade Unions, and Collective Bargaining - - - General

    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:ehl:lserod:61210. 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    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.