IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v43y2023i4p417-429.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Context Matters: Emotional Sensitivity to Probabilities and the Bias for Action in Cancer Treatment Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Heather P. Lacey

    (Department of Psychology, Center for Health and Behavioral Sciences, Bryant University, Smithfield, RI, USA)

  • Steven C. Lacey

    (Carroll School of Management, Boston University, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA)

  • Prerna Dayal

    (Department of Psychology, Center for Health and Behavioral Sciences, Bryant University, Smithfield, RI, USA)

  • Caroline Forest

    (Department of Psychology, Center for Health and Behavioral Sciences, Bryant University, Smithfield, RI, USA)

  • Dana Blasi

    (Department of Psychology, Center for Health and Behavioral Sciences, Bryant University, Smithfield, RI, USA)

Abstract

Background Past studies have shown a commission bias for cancer treatment, a tendency to choose active treatment even when watchful waiting is less risky. This bias suggests motivations for action beyond mortality statistics, but recent evidence suggests that individuals differ in their emotional sensitivity to probabilities (ESP), the tendency to calibrate emotional reactions to probability. The current study aims to examine the role of ESP in the commission bias, specifically whether those higher in ESP are more likely to choose watchful waiting when risk probabilities align with that choice. Methods Participants ( N = 1,055) read a scenario describing a hypothetical cancer diagnosis and chose between surgery and watchful waiting, with random assignment between versions where the mortality rate was either lower for surgery or for watchful waiting. We modeled choice using the Possibility Probability Questionnaire (PPQ), a measure of ESP, and several other individual differences in a logistic regression. Results We observed a commission bias as in past studies with most participants choosing surgery both when surgery was optimal (71%) and when watchful waiting was optimal (58%). An ESP × Condition interaction indicated that the predictive role of ESP depended on condition. Those higher in ESP were more likely to choose surgery when probabilities favored surgery, β = 0.57, P

Suggested Citation

  • Heather P. Lacey & Steven C. Lacey & Prerna Dayal & Caroline Forest & Dana Blasi, 2023. "Context Matters: Emotional Sensitivity to Probabilities and the Bias for Action in Cancer Treatment Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(4), pages 417-429, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:43:y:2023:i:4:p:417-429
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X231161341
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X231161341
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X231161341?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. Jonathan Baron & Gerald B. Holzman & Jay Schulkin, 1998. "Attitudes of Obstetricians and Gynecologists toward Hormone Replacement Therapy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(4), pages 406-411, October.
    2. Piercey, M. David, 2009. "Motivated reasoning and verbal vs. numerical probability assessment: Evidence from an accounting context," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 330-341, March.
    3. David A. Asch & Jonathan Baron & John C. Hershey & Howard Kunreuther & Jacqueline Meszaros & Ilana Ritov & Mark Spranca, 1994. "Omission Bias and Pertussis Vaccination," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 14(2), pages 118-123, April.
    4. Angela Fagerlin & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher & Peter A. Ubel, 2005. "Cure Me Even If It Kills Me: Preferences for Invasive Cancer Treatment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(6), pages 614-619, November.
    5. Baron, Jonathan & Ritov, Ilana, 2004. "Omission bias, individual differences, and normality," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 74-85, July.
    6. Baron, Jonathan & Ritov, Ilana, 1994. "Reference Points and Omission Bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 475-498, September.
    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. Gary D. Sherman & Beth Vallen & Stacey R. Finkelstein & Paul M. Connell & Wendy Attaya Boland & Kristen Feemster, 2021. "When taking action means accepting responsibility: Omission bias predicts parents' reluctance to vaccinate due to greater anticipated culpability for negative side effects," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(4), pages 1660-1681, December.
    2. Kim Kaivanto & Winston Kwon, 2015. "The precautionary principle as a heuristic patch," Working Papers 94449112, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:3:p:287-296 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Manja Gärtner & Anna Sandberg, 2017. "Is there an omission effect in prosocial behavior? A laboratory experiment on passive vs. active generosity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-21, March.
    5. Ahmad Barirani & Randolph Sloof & Mirjam van Praag, 2017. "The Origins and Extent of Entrepreneurial Action-Orientedness: An Experimental Study," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 17-006/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    6. Di Guida, Sibilla & Marchiori, Davide & Erev, Ido, 2012. "Decisions among defaults and the effect of the option to do nothing," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(3), pages 790-793.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:3:p:280-296 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Netta Barak-Corren & Max Bazerman, 2017. "Is saving lives your task or God’s? Religiosity, belief in god, and moral judgment," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(3), pages 280-296, May.
    9. Molenmaker, Welmer E. & de Kwaadsteniet, Erik W. & van Dijk, Eric, 2016. "The impact of personal responsibility on the (un)willingness to punish non-cooperation and reward cooperation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 1-15.
    10. Gärtner, Manja & Sandberg, Anna, 2014. "Is there an omission effect in prosocial behavior?," SSE Working Paper Series in Economics 2014:1, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 03 Dec 2015.
    11. Jonathan Baron & Geoffry P. Goodwin, 2020. "Consequences, norms, and inaction: A critical analysis," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(3), pages 421-442, May.
    12. Bruce I. Carlin & David T. Robinson, 2009. "Fear and loathing in Las Vegas: Evidence from blackjack tables," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(5), pages 385-396, August.
    13. Patt , Anthony G. & Schroter, Dagmar, 2007. "Perceptions of environmental risks in Mozambique : implications for the success of adaptation and coping strategies," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4417, The World Bank.
    14. Polman, Evan, 2012. "Self–other decision making and loss aversion," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 141-150.
    15. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:3:p:421-442 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Yury Shevchenko & Bettina von Helversen & Benjamin Scheibehenne, 2014. "Change and status quo in decisions with defaults: The effect of incidental emotions depends on the type of default," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(3), pages 287-296, May.
    17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:5:p:385-396 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Connolly, Terry & Reb, Jochen, 2003. "Omission bias in vaccination decisions: Where's the "omission"? Where's the "bias"?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 186-202, July.
    19. David Klenert & Franziska Funke & Linus Mattauch & Brian O’Callaghan, 2020. "Five Lessons from COVID-19 for Advancing Climate Change Mitigation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(4), pages 751-778, August.
    20. Inman, J.J. & Zeelenberg, M., 2002. "Regret in repeat purchase versus switching decisions : The attenuating role of decision justifiability," Other publications TiSEM 44060120-bd30-40e0-a97f-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    21. James C. Cox & Maroš Servátka & Radovan Vadovic, 2012. "Status Quo Effects in Fairness Games: Reciprocal Responses to Acts of Commission vs. Acts of Omission," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2012-03, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, revised Mar 2016.
    22. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:4:p:423-439 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Huber, Joel & Viscusi, W. Kip & Bell, Jason, 2008. "Reference dependence in iterative choices," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 143-152, July.
    24. Li-Jun Ji & Courtney M. Lappas & Xin-qiang Wang & Brian P. Meier, 2023. "The Naturalness Bias Influences Drug and Vaccine Decisions across Cultures," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(2), pages 252-262, February.
    25. Vermeulen, Bart & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2008. "Models and optimal designs for conjoint choice experiments including a no-choice option," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 94-103.

    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:43:y:2023:i:4:p:417-429. 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.