IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v65y2007i10p2105-2115.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk perception and decision processes underlying informed consent to research participation

Author

Listed:
  • Reynolds, William W.
  • Nelson, Robert M.

Abstract

According to the rational choice model, informed consent should consist of a systematic, step-by-step evaluation of all information pertinent to the treatment or research participation decision. Research shows that people frequently deviate from this normative model, however, employing decision-making shortcuts, or heuristics. In this paper we report findings from a qualitative study of 32 adolescents and (their) 31 parents who were recruited from two Northeastern US hospitals and asked to consider the risks of and make hypothetical decisions about research participation. The purpose of this study was to increase our understanding of how diabetic and at-risk adolescents (i.e., those who are obese and/or have a family history of diabetes) and their parents perceive risks and make decisions about research participation. Using data collected from adolescents and parents, we identify heuristic decision processes in which participant perceptions of risk magnitude, which are formed quickly and intuitively and appear to be based on affective responses to information, are far more prominent and central to the participation decision than are perceptions of probability. We discuss participants' use of decision-making heuristics in the context of recent research on affect and decision processes, and we consider the implications of these findings for researchers.

Suggested Citation

  • Reynolds, William W. & Nelson, Robert M., 2007. "Risk perception and decision processes underlying informed consent to research participation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(10), pages 2105-2115, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:65:y:2007:i:10:p:2105-2115
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(07)00346-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kuhberger, Anton & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Michael & Perner, Josef, 2002. "Framing decisions: Hypothetical and real," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1162-1175, November.
    2. Bettman, James R & Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W, 1998. "Constructive Consumer Choice Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(3), pages 187-217, December.
    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. Huber, Oswald & Macho, Siegfried, 2001. "Probabilistic set-up and the search for probability information in quasi-naturalistic decision tasks," Risk, Decision and Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 1-16, April.
    5. Andrew Lloyd & Paul Hayes & Peter R. F. Bell & A. Ross Naylor, 2001. "The Role of Risk and Benefit Perception in Informed Consent for Surgery," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(2), pages 141-149, April.
    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. Christofides, Emily & Dobson, Jennifer A. & Solomon, Melinda & Waters, Valerie & O’Doherty, Kieran C., 2016. "Heuristic decision-making about research participation in children with cystic fibrosis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 32-40.
    2. M. Grace Trinidad & Jodyn Platt & Sharon L. R. Kardia, 2020. "The public’s comfort with sharing health data with third-party commercial companies," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-10, December.
    3. Purva Abhyankar & Barbara A. Summers & Galina Velikova & Hilary L. Bekker, 2014. "Framing Options as Choice or Opportunity," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(5), pages 567-582, July.
    4. Abhyankar, Purva & Velikova, Galina & Summers, Barbara & Bekker, Hilary L., 2016. "Identifying components in consent information needed to support informed decision making about trial participation: An interview study with women managing cancer," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 83-91.

    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. Hilke Plassmann & Peter Kenning & Michael Deppe & Harald Kugel & Wolfram Schwindt, 2005. "Neural correlates of the affect heuristic during brand choice," Experimental 0509004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Wiebach, Nicole & Hildebrandt, Lutz, 2012. "Explaining customers' switching patterns to brand delisting," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 1-10.
    3. Hyowon Kim & Dong Soo Kim & Greg M. Allenby, 2020. "Benefit Formation and Enhancement," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 419-468, December.
    4. Raman Kachurka & Michał W. Krawczyk & Joanna Rachubik, 2021. "Persuasive messages will not raise COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Evidence from a nation-wide online experiment," Working Papers 2021-07, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    5. James K. Hammitt, 2020. "Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 129-154, October.
    6. Huaiyuan Zhai & Mengjie Li & Shengyue Hao & Mingli Chen & Lingchen Kong, 2021. "How Does Metro Maintenance Staff’s Risk Perception Influence Safety Citizenship Behavior—The Mediating Role of Safety Attitude," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-20, May.
    7. Scorgie, Fiona & Khoza, Nomhle & Delany-Moretlwe, Sinead & Velloza, Jennifer & Mangxilana, Nomvuyo & Atujuna, Millicent & Chitukuta, Miria & Matambanadzo, Kudzai V. & Hosek, Sybil & Makhale, Lerato & , 2021. "Narrative sexual histories and perceptions of HIV risk among young women taking PrEP in southern Africa: Findings from a novel participatory method," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 270(C).
    8. Martinovici, A., 2019. "Revealing attention - how eye movements predict brand choice and moment of choice," Other publications TiSEM 7dca38a5-9f78-4aee-bd81-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    9. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.
    10. Kang, Min Jung & Park, Heejun, 2011. "Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3465-3475, June.
    11. Branden B. Johnson, 2017. "Explaining Americans’ responses to dread epidemics: an illustration with Ebola in late 2014," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(10), pages 1338-1357, October.
    12. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    13. Robinson, Angela & Covey, Judith & Spencer, Anne & Loomes, Graham, 2010. "Are some deaths worse than others? The effect of 'labelling' on people's perceptions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 444-455, June.
    14. Greenacre, Luke & Martin, James & Patrick, Sarah & Jaeger, Victoria, 2016. "Boundaries of the centrality effect during product choice," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 32-38.
    15. Somerville, Jason & McGowan, Féidhlim, 2016. "Can chocolate cure blindness? Investigating the effect of preference strength and incentives on the incidence of Choice Blindness," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1-11.
    16. Kai Greenlees & Randolph Cornelius, 2021. "The promise of panarchy in managed retreat: converging psychological perspectives and complex adaptive systems theory," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(3), pages 503-510, September.
    17. Charles Cunningham & Ken Deal & Yvonne Chen, 2010. "Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 257-273, December.
    18. Thomas Deroche & Yannick Stephan & Tim Woodman & Christine Le Scanff, 2012. "Psychological Mediators of the Sport Injury—Perceived Risk Relationship," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 113-121, January.
    19. Felix J. Formanski & Marcel M. Pein & David D. Loschelder & John-Oliver Engler & Onno Husen & Johann M. Majer, 2022. "Tipping points ahead? How laypeople respond to linear versus nonlinear climate change predictions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 1-20, November.
    20. Heather Rosoff & Robert Siko & Richard John & William J. Burns, 2013. "Should I stay or should I go? An experimental study of health and economic government policies following a severe biological agent release," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 121-137, March.

    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:eee:socmed:v:65:y:2007:i:10:p:2105-2115. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.