IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v42y2022i3p326-340.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceived Social Norms Guide Health Care Decisions for Oneself and Others: A Cross-Sectional Experiment in a US Online Panel

Author

Listed:
  • JoNell Strough

    (Department of Psychology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA)

  • Eric R. Stone

    (Department of Psychology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA)

  • Andrew M. Parker

    (Behavioral and Policy Sciences, RAND, Pittsburgh, PA, USA)

  • Wändi Bruine de Bruin

    (Sol Price School of Public Policy, Dornsife Department of Psychology, Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, Center for Economic and Social Research, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA)

Abstract

Background: Global aging has increased the reliance on surrogates to make health care decisions for others. We investigated the differences between making health care decisions and predicting health care decisions, self-other differences for made and predicted health care decisions, and the roles of perceived social norms, emotional closeness, empathy, age, and gender. Methods: Participants ( N = 2037) from a nationally representative US panel were randomly assigned to make or to predict a health care decision. They were also randomly assigned to 1 of 5 recipients: themselves, a loved one 60 y or older, a loved one younger than 60 y, a distant acquaintance 60 y or older, or a distant acquaintance younger than 60 y. Hypothetical health care scenarios depicted choices between relatively safe lower-risk treatments with a good chance of yielding mild health improvements versus higher-risk treatments that offered a moderate chance of substantial health improvements. Participants reported their likelihood of choosing lower- versus higher-risk treatments, their perceptions of family and friends’ approval of risky health care decisions, and their empathy. Results: We present 3 key findings. First, made decisions involved less risk taking than predicted decisions, especially for distant others. Second, predicted decisions were similar for others and oneself, but made decisions were less risk taking for others than oneself. People predicted that loved ones would be less risk taking than distant others would be. Third, perceived social norms were more strongly associated than empathy with made and predicted decisions. Limitations: Hypothetical scenarios may not adequately represent emotional processes in health care decision making. Conclusions: Perceived social norms may sway people to take less risk in health care decisions, especially when making decisions for others. These findings have implications for improving surrogate decision making. Highlights People made less risky health care decisions for others than for themselves, even though they predicted others would make decisions similar to their own. This has implications for understanding how surrogates apply the substituted judgment standard when making decisions for patients. Perceived social norms were more strongly related to decisions than treatment-recipient (relationship closeness, age) and decision-maker (age, gender, empathy) characteristics. Those who perceived that avoiding health care risks was valued by their social group were less likely to choose risky medical treatments. Understanding the power of perceived social norms in shaping surrogates’ decisions may help physicians to engage surrogates in shared decision making. Knowledge of perceived social norms may facilitate the design of decision aids for surrogates.

Suggested Citation

  • JoNell Strough & Eric R. Stone & Andrew M. Parker & Wändi Bruine de Bruin, 2022. "Perceived Social Norms Guide Health Care Decisions for Oneself and Others: A Cross-Sectional Experiment in a US Online Panel," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(3), pages 326-340, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:3:p:326-340
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211067223
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211067223
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X211067223?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. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:3:p:250-267 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Lemaster, Philip & Strough, JoNell, 2014. "Beyond Mars and Venus: Understanding gender differences in financial risk tolerance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 148-160.
    3. Mira Johri & Laura J. Damschroder & Brian J. Zikmund‐Fisher & Peter A. Ubel, 2005. "The importance of age in allocating health care resources: does intervention‐type matter?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(7), pages 669-678, July.
    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. Gill, Balbinder Singh, 2023. "Health uninsurance premium and mortgage interest rates," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).

    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. Pragati Hemrajani & Rajni & Rahul Dhiman, 2024. "Retail Investors’ Financial Risk Tolerance and Risk-taking Behaviour: The Role of Psychological Factors," FIIB Business Review, , vol. 13(1), pages 87-105, January.
    2. Luo, Jin-hui & Peng, Chenchen & Zhang, Xin, 2020. "The impact of CFO gender on corporate fraud: Evidence from China," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    3. Cheng, Teng Yuan & Lee, Chun I. & Lin, Chao Hsien, 2020. "The effect of risk-taking behavior on profitability: Evidence from futures market," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 19-38.
    4. Olof Johansson‐Stenman & Minhaj Mahmud & Peter Martinsson, 2011. "Saving lives versus life‐years in rural Bangladesh: an ethical preferences approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(6), pages 723-736, June.
    5. Khor, Ling Yee & Sariyev, Orkhan & Loos, Tim, 2020. "Gender differences in risk behavior and the link to household effects and individual wealth," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    6. Benning, Tim M. & Dellaert, Benedict G.C., 2013. "Paying more for faster care? Individuals' attitude toward price-based priority access in health care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 119-128.
    7. Dingli Xi & Timothy Ian O'Brien & Elnaz Irannezhad, 2019. "Investigating the Investment Behaviors in Cryptocurrency," Papers 1912.03311, arXiv.org.
    8. Saeed Pahlevan Sharif & Ashraf Sadat Ahadzadeh & Jason James Turner, 2020. "Gender Differences in Financial Literacy and Financial Behaviour Among Young Adults: The Role of Parents and Information Seeking," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 672-690, December.
    9. Zandri Dickason-Koekemoer & Sune Ferreira-Schenk, 2022. "Constructing a Model for Domain-specific Risk-taking, Life Satisfaction and Risk Tolerance of Investors," International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Econjournals, vol. 12(4), pages 84-90, July.
    10. Gill, Betty & Griffin, Barbara & Hesketh, Beryl, 2013. "Changing expectations concerning life-extending treatment: The relevance of opportunity cost," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 66-73.
    11. Jennifer A. Whitty & Julie Ratcliffe & Gang Chen & Paul A. Scuffham, 2014. "Australian Public Preferences for the Funding of New Health Technologies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(5), pages 638-654, July.
    12. Jeff Richardson & John McKie & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell, 2017. "Age Weights for Health Services Derived from the Relative Social Willingness-to-Pay Instrument," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(3), pages 239-251, April.
    13. Fisher, Patti J. & Yao, Rui, 2017. "Gender differences in financial risk tolerance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 191-202.
    14. Friedl, Andreas & Pondorfer, Andreas & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2020. "Gender differences in social risk taking," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    15. Lancsar, Emily & Wildman, John & Donaldson, Cam & Ryan, Mandy & Baker, Rachel, 2011. "Deriving distributional weights for QALYs through discrete choice experiments," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 466-478, March.
    16. Natalia Rogova & Shashi Matta, 2023. "The role of identity in digital consumer behavior: A conceptual model and research propositions based on gender," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 13(1), pages 55-70, June.

    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:42:y:2022:i:3:p:326-340. 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.