IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v27y2007i3p299-310.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Default Effect in End-of-Life Medical Treatment Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Laura M. Kressel

    (Department of Psychology, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey)

  • Gretchen B. Chapman

    (Department of Psychology, New York University, lmk323@nyu.edu)

Abstract

Background. Living wills are intended to preserve patient autonomy, but recent studies suggest that they do not always have their desired effect. One possible explanation is that living wills do not capture the authentic preferences of the patients who write them but instead reflect transient contextual effects on preferences. Purpose. Two experiments examined whether end-of-life treatment preferences expressed in a living will were influenced by the presence of default options. Method. College students participated in 2 Web-based questionnaire experiments ( N s = 182 and 51). Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 or 3 default conditions. Results. In experiment 1, participants expressed significantly different treatment preferences in 3 normatively equivalent, check box—formatted living wills that were either positively worded (“indicate medical treatments you would want administered†), negatively worded (“indicate treatments you would want withheld†), or of forced-choice format ( P = 0.01). Participants expressed a stronger preference to receive treatment in the negatively worded document than in the positively worded document as a consequence of preferring the default option in both cases. Participants in experiment 2 were also influenced by the presence of a default option, but this time, while writing narrative living wills after viewing 1 of 2 sample living wills. In this experiment, the sample living will represented the default preference. The participants' own living wills tended to express preferences similar to those in the sample ( P = 0.0005). Conclusion. The default manipulations in both experiments had potent but transient effects and influenced what participants wrote in their living wills but not their responses to later medical scenarios. Expression of end-of-life treatment preferences appears to be temporarily constructed from the decision-making context. These results have implications for surrogate decision making and the use of the living will as a tool to preserve patient autonomy.

Suggested Citation

  • Laura M. Kressel & Gretchen B. Chapman, 2007. "The Default Effect in End-of-Life Medical Treatment Preferences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(3), pages 299-310, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:3:p:299-310
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07300608
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X07300608
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X07300608?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vincent Somville & Lore Vandewalle, 2018. "Saving by Default: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Rural India," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 10(3), pages 39-66, July.
    2. Ada C. Stefanescu Schmidt & Ami B. Bhatt & Cass R. Sunstein, 2017. "Boundedly rational patients? Part 1: Health and patient mistakes in a behavioral framework," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 1(2), pages 11-15, September.

    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:27:y:2007:i:3:p:299-310. 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.