IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v29y2009i2p193-201.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Anchoring-and-Adjustment Bias in Communication of Disease Risk

Author

Listed:
  • Ibrahim Senay

    (Social and Behavioral Research Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, senay@illinois.edu)

  • Kimberly A. Kaphingst

    (Social and Behavioral Research Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland)

Abstract

Over the next decade, advances in genomics will make it increasingly possible to provide patients with personalized, genetic-based risks of common diseases, allowing them the opportunity to take preventive steps through behavioral changes. However, previous research indicates that people may insufficiently adjust their subjective risk to the objective risk value communicated to them by a healthcare provider, a phenomenon called anchoring-and-adjustment bias. In this narrative review, we analyze existing research on how patients process disease-risk information, and the processing biases that may occur, to show that the bias observed in disease-risk communication is potentially malleable to change. We recommend that, to reduce this bias and change patients' misperceptions of disease risk in clinical settings, future studies investigate the effects of forewarning patients about the bias, tailoring risk information to their numeracy level, emphasizing social roles, increasing motivation to form accurate risk perception, and reducing social stigmatization, disease worry and information overload.

Suggested Citation

  • Ibrahim Senay & Kimberly A. Kaphingst, 2009. "Anchoring-and-Adjustment Bias in Communication of Disease Risk," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(2), pages 193-201, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:29:y:2009:i:2:p:193-201
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08327395
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X08327395
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X08327395?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. Noel T. Brewer & Gretchen B. Chapman & Janet A. Schwartz & George R. Bergus, 2007. "The Influence of Irrelevant Anchors on the Judgments and Choices of Doctors and Patients," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(2), pages 203-211, March.
    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. Eric Racine & Sarah Kusch & M. Ariel Cascio & Aline Bogossian, 2021. "Making autonomy an instrument: a pragmatist account of contextualized autonomy," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Faina Linkov & Christopher L. Cummings & David J. Dausey, 2024. "Official risk communication for COVID-19 and beyond: can we do a better job?," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 293-300, June.
    3. Lijie Shan & Shusai Wang & Linhai Wu & Fu-Sheng Tsai, 2019. "Cognitive Biases of Consumers’ Risk Perception of Foodborne Diseases in China: Examining Anchoring Effect," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-14, June.

    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. Nathan N. Cheek & Sarah Coe-Odess & Barry Schwartz, 2015. "What have I just done? Anchoring, self-knowledge, and judgments of recent behavior," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(1), pages 76-85, January.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:1:p:76-85 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Chen Benjamin Minhao & Li Zhiyu, 2018. "The Foundations of Judicial Diffusion in China: Evidence from an Experiment," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 14(3), pages 1-27, November.
    4. Lijie Shan & Shusai Wang & Linhai Wu & Fu-Sheng Tsai, 2019. "Cognitive Biases of Consumers’ Risk Perception of Foodborne Diseases in China: Examining Anchoring Effect," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-14, June.
    5. Egginton, Jared & Hur, Jungshik, 2018. "The robust “maximum daily return effect as demand for lottery” and “idiosyncratic volatility puzzle”," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 229-245.
    6. Mochon, Daniel & Frederick, Shane, 2013. "Anchoring in sequential judgments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 69-79.

    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:193-201. 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: 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.