Author
Listed:
- Jamie Arndt
(Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia, arndtj@missouri.edu)
- Matthew Vess
(Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia)
- Cathy R. Cox
(Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia)
- Jamie L. Goldenberg
(Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa)
- Stephen Lagle
(Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia)
Abstract
Background . Prejudice by medical providers has been found to contribute to differential cardiac risk estimates. As such, empirical examinations of psychological factors associated with such biases are warranted. Considerable psychological research implicates concerns with personal mortality in motivating prejudicial biases. The authors sought to examine whether provoking thoughts of mortality among medical students would engender more cautious cardiac risk assessments for a hypothetical Christian than for a Muslim patient. Methods . During the spring of 2007, university medical students ( N = 47 ) were randomly assigned to conditions in a 2 (mortality salience) × 2 (patient religion) full factorial experimental design. In an online survey, participants answered questions about their mortality or about future uncertainty, inspected emergency room admittance forms for a Muslim or Christian patient complaining of chest pain, and subsequently estimated risk for coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, and the combined risk of either of the two. A composite risk index was formed based on the responses (on a scale of 0 — 100) to each of the 3 cardiac risk questions. Results . Reminders of mortality interacted with patient religion to influence risk assessments, F 1,41 = 11:57 , P = 0:002 , η 2 =:22 . After being reminded of mortality, participants rendered more serious cardiac risk estimates for a Christian patient ( F 1,41 = 8:66 , P = 0:01 ) and less serious estimates for a Muslim patient ( F 1,41 = 4:08 , P=0:05 ). Conclusion . Reminders of personal mortality can lead to biased patient risk assessment as medical providers use their cultural identification to psychologically manage their awareness of death.
Suggested Citation
Jamie Arndt & Matthew Vess & Cathy R. Cox & Jamie L. Goldenberg & Stephen Lagle, 2009.
"The Psychosocial Effect of Thoughts of Personal Mortality on Cardiac Risk Assessment,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(2), pages 175-181, March.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:29:y:2009:i:2:p:175-181
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08323300
Download full text from publisher
Citations
Citations are extracted by the
CitEc Project, subscribe to its
RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- Duberstein, Paul R. & Hoerger, Michael & Norton, Sally A. & Mohile, Supriya & Dahlberg, Britt & Hyatt, Erica Goldblatt & Epstein, Ronald M. & Wittink, Marsha N., 2023.
"The TRIBE model: How socioemotional processes fuel end-of-life treatment in the United States,"
Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 317(C).
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:29:y:2009:i:2:p:175-181. 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.