IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jconrs/v50y2023i1p25-47..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Misperception of Multiple Risks in Medical Decision-Making

Author

Listed:
  • Mehdi Mourali
  • Zhiyong Yang

Abstract

How do consumers combine multiple risk items when forming overall risk judgments? Drawing on the fuzzy trace theory and categorical averaging, this research finds that adding a low-risk item to a high-risk item reduces the overall risk perception because people reason categorically about risk. They impose categorical distinctions on quantitative risk information, and when combining categorical information, they tend to average across categories instead of adding. Eight studies in the context of medical and health product decisions (N = 5,152) provide convergent evidence showing that when items in different risk tiers are considered together, they are consistently evaluated in a subtractive manner, leading to a higher likelihood of taking the objectively riskier medication (studies 1A, 1B, 1C, and 2). This effect is eliminated when the probability of one side effect is exceedingly high (study 3) or when the task requires reliance on verbatim representation of probabilities (study 4). The effect also disappears when risk information is presented graphically in a way that emphasizes the additive property of multiple risks (studies 5A and 5B). The findings have important implications for the fields of risk perception, risk communication, and consumer health and medical decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jconrs:v:50:y:2023:i:1:p:25-47.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jcr/ucac040
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. 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. Aaron R. Brough & Alexander Chernev, 2012. "When Opposites Detract: Categorical Reasoning and Subtractive Valuations of Product Combinations," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 39(2), pages 399-414.
    3. Carmen Keller & Michael Siegrist, 2009. "Effect of Risk Communication Formats on Risk Perception Depending on Numeracy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(4), pages 483-490, July.
    4. Troutman, C Michael & Shanteau, James, 1976. "Do Consumers Evaluate Products by Adding or Averaging Attribute Information?," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 3(2), pages 101-106, Se.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:1:p:100-121 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Isaac M. Lipkus, 2007. "Numeric, Verbal, and Visual Formats of Conveying Health Risks: Suggested Best Practices and Future Recommendations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 696-713, September.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:1:p:25-47 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. 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.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:5:p:420-432 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Garcia-Retamero, Rocio & Hoffrage, Ulrich, 2013. "Visual representation of statistical information improves diagnostic inferences in doctors and their patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 27-33.
    4. Spiller, Stephen A. & Ariely, Dan, 2020. "How does the perceived value of a medium of exchange depend on its set of possible uses?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 188-200.
    5. Pieterse, Arwen H. & de Vries, Marieke & Kunneman, Marleen & Stiggelbout, Anne M. & Feldman-Stewart, Deb, 2013. "Theory-informed design of values clarification methods: A cognitive psychological perspective on patient health-related decision making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 156-163.
    6. Carmen Keller & Christina Kreuzmair & Rebecca Leins-Hess & Michael Siegrist, 2014. "Numeric and graphic risk information processing of high and low numerates in the intuitive and deliberative decision modes: An eye-tracker study," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(5), pages 420-432, September.
    7. Lyndal J. Trevena & Carissa Bonner & Yasmina Okan & Ellen Peters & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Paul K. J. Han & Elissa Ozanne & Danielle Timmermans & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2021. "Current Challenges When Using Numbers in Patient Decision Aids: Advanced Concepts," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 834-847, October.
    8. Schonlau Matthias & Peters Ellen, 2012. "Comprehension of Graphs and Tables Depend on the Task: Empirical Evidence from Two Web-Based Studies," Statistics, Politics and Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-35, August.
    9. Rebecca Hess & Vivianne H.M. Visschers & Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller, 2011. "How do people perceive graphical risk communication? The role of subjective numeracy," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1), pages 47-61, January.
    10. Claudia Townsend & Darren DahlEditor & Page MoreauAssociate Editor, 2017. "The Price of Beauty: Differential Effects of Design Elements with and without Cost Implications in Nonprofit Donor Solicitations," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 44(4), pages 794-815.
    11. Tarek Abdallah, 2019. "On the Benefit (Or Cost) of Large‐Scale Bundling," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 28(4), pages 955-969, April.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Lin, Wanchuan & Sloan, Frank, 2015. "Risk perceptions and smoking decisions of adult Chinese men," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 60-73.
    15. Bateman, Hazel & Eckert, Christine & Geweke, John & Louviere, Jordan & Satchell, Stephen & Thorp, Susan, 2014. "Financial competence, risk presentation and retirement portfolio preferences," Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 27-61, January.
    16. Michael Siegrist & Philipp Hübner & Christina Hartmann, 2018. "Risk Prioritization in the Food Domain Using Deliberative and Survey Methods: Differences between Experts and Laypeople," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 504-524, March.
    17. Gupta, Shipra & Coskun, Merve, 2021. "The influence of human crowding and store messiness on consumer purchase intention– the role of contamination and scarcity perceptions," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    18. 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).
    19. Moon, Junyean & Tikoo, Surinder, 1997. "Consumer Use of Available Information for Making Inferences about Missing Information," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 135-146, June.
    20. Timmons, Shane & Lunn, Pete, 2022. "Public understanding of climate change and support for mitigation," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number RS135.
    21. 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.

    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:oup:jconrs:v:50:y:2023:i:1:p:25-47.. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcr .

    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.