IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0079181.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Differences in Simulated Doctor and Patient Medical Decision Making: A Construal Level Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Jiaxi Peng
  • Fei He
  • Yan Zhang
  • Quanhui Liu
  • Danmin Miao
  • Wei Xiao

Abstract

Background: Patients are often confronted with diverse medical decisions. Often lacking relevant medical knowledge, patients fail to independently make medical decisions and instead generally rely on the advice of doctors. Objective: This study investigated the characteristics of and differences in doctor–patient medical decision making on the basis of construal level theory. Methods: A total of 420 undergraduates majoring in clinical medicine were randomly assigned to six groups. Their decisions to opt for radiotherapy and surgery were investigated, with the choices described in a positive/neutral/negative frame × decision making for self/others. Results: Compared with participants giving medical advice to patients, participants deciding for themselves were more likely to select radiotherapy (F1, 404 = 13.92, p = 011). Participants from positive or neutral frames exhibited a higher tendency to choose surgery than did those from negative frames (F2, 404 = 22.53, p

Suggested Citation

  • Jiaxi Peng & Fei He & Yan Zhang & Quanhui Liu & Danmin Miao & Wei Xiao, 2013. "Differences in Simulated Doctor and Patient Medical Decision Making: A Construal Level Perspective," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-7, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0079181
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079181
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0079181
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0079181&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0079181?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. Yaniv, Ilan & Milyavsky, Maxim, 2007. "Using advice from multiple sources to revise and improve judgments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 104-120, May.
    2. Bonaccio, Silvia & Dalal, Reeshad S., 2006. "Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 127-151, November.
    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. Gilkey, Melissa B. & Grabert, Brigid K. & Malo, Teri L. & Hall, Megan E. & Brewer, Noel T., 2020. "Physicians’ rhetorical strategies for motivating HPV vaccination," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    2. Chia-Yen Lin, 2015. "Promote Health or Prevent Disease? The Effects of Health-Related Advertising on Eating Behavior Intention," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-18, March.

    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. Alison Wood Brooks & Francesca Gino & Maurice E. Schweitzer, 2015. "Smart People Ask for (My) Advice: Seeking Advice Boosts Perceptions of Competence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1421-1435, June.
    2. Robert M. Gillenkirch & Julia Ortner & Sebastian Robert & Louis Velthuis, 2023. "Designing incentives and performance measurement for advisors: How to make decision-makers listen to advice," Working Papers 2304, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    3. Ilan Yaniv & Shoham Choshen-Hillel, 2012. "When guessing what another person would say is better than giving your own opinion: Using perspective-taking to improve advice-taking," Discussion Paper Series dp622, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    4. Jaeseob Lim & Sang-Hun Lee, 2020. "Utility and use of accuracy cues in social learning of crowd preferences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-25, October.
    5. Spassova, Gerri & Palmeira, Mauricio & Andrade, Eduardo B., 2018. "A ratings pattern heuristic in judgments of expertise: When being right Looks wrong," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 26-47.
    6. Förster, Bernadette & von der Gracht, Heiko, 2014. "Assessing Delphi panel composition for strategic foresight — A comparison of panels based on company-internal and external participants," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 215-229.
    7. Albert E. Mannes, 2009. "Are We Wise About the Wisdom of Crowds? The Use of Group Judgments in Belief Revision," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(8), pages 1267-1279, August.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:3:p:265-276 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:2:p:144-171 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Thomas Schultze & Anne-Fernandine Rakotoarisoa & Stefan Schulz-Hardt, 2015. "Effects of distance between initial estimates and advice on advice utilization," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(2), pages 144-171, March.
    11. Effron, Daniel A. & Miller, Dale T., 2015. "Do as I say, not as I’ve done: Suffering for a misdeed reduces the hypocrisy of advising others against it," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 16-32.
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:4:p:401-415 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Winkler, Jens & Moser, Roger, 2016. "Biases in future-oriented Delphi studies: A cognitive perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 63-76.
    14. Soll, Jack B. & Mannes, Albert E., 2011. "Judgmental aggregation strategies depend on whether the self is involved," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 81-102.
    15. Haeussler, Carolin & Vieth, Sabrina, 2022. "A question worth a million: The expert, the crowd, or myself? An investigation of problem solving," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(3).
    16. Corentin Vande Kerckhove & Samuel Martin & Pascal Gend & Peter J Rentfrow & Julien M Hendrickx & Vincent D Blondel, 2016. "Modelling Influence and Opinion Evolution in Online Collective Behaviour," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-25, June.
    17. Soll, Jack B. & Mannes, Albert E., 2011. "Judgmental aggregation strategies depend on whether the self is involved," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 81-102, January.
    18. Mandy Hütter & Fabian Ache, 2016. "Seeking advice: A sampling approach to advice taking," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(4), pages 401-415, July.
    19. Philipp Ecken & Richard Pibernik, 2016. "Hit or Miss: What Leads Experts to Take Advice for Long-Term Judgments?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(7), pages 2002-2021, July.
    20. Peter Bednarik & Thomas Schultze, 2015. "The effectiveness of imperfect weighting in advice taking," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(3), pages 265-276, May.
    21. Morin, Olivier & Jacquet, Pierre O. & Vaesen, Krist & Acerbi, Alberto, 2020. "Social information use and social information waste," SocArXiv rqcdf, Center for Open Science.
    22. Sheen S. Levine & Michael J. Prietula & Ann Majchrzak, 2022. "Advice in Crisis: Principles of Organizational and Entrepreneurial Resilience," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 11(4), pages 145-168, December.
    23. Meissner, Philip & Brands, Christian & Wulf, Torsten, 2017. "Quantifiying blind spots and weak signals in executive judgment: A structured integration of expert judgment into the scenario development process," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 244-253.

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0079181. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.