IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v33y2013i1p71-77.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On Averages and Peaks

Author

Listed:
  • Shoshana Shiloh
  • Christopher H. Wade
  • J. Scott Roberts
  • Sharon Hensley Alford
  • Barbara B. Biesecker

Abstract

Background . The aim of the current study was to learn how people integrate attitudes about multiple health conditions to make a decision about genetic testing uptake. Methods . This study recruited 294 healthy young adults from a parent research project, the Multiplex Initiative, conducted in a large health care system in Detroit, Michigan. All participants were offered a multiplex genetic test that assessed risk for 8 common health conditions (e.g., type 2 diabetes). Data were collected from a baseline survey, a web-based survey, and at the time of testing. Results . Averaging attitudes across diseases predicted test uptake but did not contribute beyond peak attitudes, the highest attitude toward testing for a single disease in the set. Peak attitudes were found sufficient to predict test uptake. Limitations . The effects of set size and mode of presentation could not be examined because these factors were constant in the multiplex test offered. Conclusions . These findings support theories suggesting that people use representative evaluations in attitude formation. The implication of these findings for further developments in genetic testing is that the communication and impact of multiplex testing may need to be considered in the light of a bias toward peak attitudes.

Suggested Citation

  • Shoshana Shiloh & Christopher H. Wade & J. Scott Roberts & Sharon Hensley Alford & Barbara B. Biesecker, 2013. "On Averages and Peaks," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 71-77, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:33:y:2013:i:1:p:71-77
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X12464432
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X12464432
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X12464432?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. Gooding, Holly C. & Organista, Kurt & Burack, Jeffrey & Biesecker, Barbara Bowles, 2006. "Genetic susceptibility testing from a stress and coping perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(8), pages 1880-1890, April.
    2. Andreas Glöckner & Tilmann Betsch, 2008. "Multiple-Reason Decision Making Based on Automatic Processing," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2008_12, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    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. Moshe Glickman & Orian Sharoni & Dino J Levy & Ernst Niebur & Veit Stuphorn & Marius Usher, 2019. "The formation of preference in risky choice," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-25, August.
    2. Nina Horstmann & Andrea Ahlgrimm & Andreas Glöckner, 2009. "How Distinct are Intuition and Deliberation? An Eye-Tracking Analysis of Instruction-Induced Decision Modes," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2009_10, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    3. Sophie E. Scharf & Monika Wiegelmann & Arndt Bröder, 2019. "Information search in everyday decisions: The generalizability of the attraction search effect," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(4), pages 488-512, July.
    4. Rudiger F. Pohl, 2011. "On the use of recognition in inferential decision making: An overview of the debate," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(5), pages 423-438, July.
    5. Marc Jekel & Susann Fiedler & Andreas Glockner, 2011. "Diagnostic task selection for strategy classification in judgment and decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 782-799, December.
    6. Christoph Engel & Andreas Glöckner, 2008. "Can We Trust Intuitive Jurors? An Experimental Analysis," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2008_36, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    7. Salzberger, Thomas & Koller, Monika, 2013. "Towards a new paradigm of measurement in marketing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(9), pages 1307-1317.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:7:p:587-600 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:8:p:814-820 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:1:p:1-22 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:8:p:711-721 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:1:p:54-63 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Giovanni Gavetti & Massimo Warglien, 2015. "A Model of Collective Interpretation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(5), pages 1263-1283, October.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:8:p:782-799 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:8:p:740-749 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Mandeep K. Dhami & Jeryl L. Mumpower, 2018. "Kenneth R. Hammond’s contributions to the study of judgment and decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(1), pages 1-22, January.
    17. Auriol, Emmanuelle & Mesnard, Alice & Perrault, Tiffanie, 2023. "Temporary foreign work permits: Honing the tools to defeat human smuggling," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    18. Michael D. Lee & Benjamin R. Newell, 2011. "Using hierarchical Bayesian methods to examine the tools of decision-making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 832-842, December.
    19. Andreas Glockner & Arndt Broder, 2014. "Cognitive integration of recognition information and additional cues in memory-based decisions," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(1), pages 35-50, January.
    20. Britta Herbig & Andreas Glöckner, 2009. "Experts and Decision Making: First Steps Towards a Unifying Theory of Decision Making in Novices, Intermediates and Experts," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2009_02, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    21. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:4:p:272-284 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:3:p:299-329 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Nina Horstmann & Andrea Ahlgrimm & Andreas Glöckner, 2009. "How distinct are intuition and deliberation? An eye-tracking analysis of instruction-induced decision modes," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(5), pages 335-354, August.
    24. Shixi Zhao & Wei-Ju Chen & Oi-Man Kwok & Shweta U. Dhar & Tanya N. Eble & Tung-Sung Tseng & Lei-Shih Chen, 2021. "Psychometric Properties of the POAGTS: A Tool for Understanding Parents’ Perceptions Regarding Autism Spectrum Disorder Genetic Testing," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-21, March.
    25. Andreas Glöckner & Ann-Katrin Herbold, 2008. "Information Processing in Decisions under Risk: Evidence for Compensatory Strategies based on Automatic Processes," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2008_42, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    26. Marc Jekel & Andreas Nicklisch & Andreas Gloeckner, 2010. "Implementation of the Multiple-Measure Maximum Likelihood strategy classification method in R: Addendum to Gloeckner (2009) and practical guide for application," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(1), pages 54-63, February.
    27. Polonio, Luca & Di Guida, Sibilla & Coricelli, Giorgio, 2015. "Strategic sophistication and attention in games: An eye-tracking study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 80-96.
    28. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:8:p:832-842 is not listed on IDEAS
    29. Morten Moshagen & Benjamin E. Hilbig, 2011. "Methodological notes on model comparisons and strategy classification: A falsificationist proposition," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 814-820, December.
    30. Benjamin E. Hilbig, 2010. "Precise models deserve precise measures: A methodological dissection," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(4), pages 272-284, July.

    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:33:y:2013:i:1:p:71-77. 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.