IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v7y1987i4p203-211.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Clinical Reasoning and Cognitive Processes

Author

Listed:
  • John C. Hershey
  • Jonathan Baron

Abstract

Expected utility theory, and the Bayesian probability theory on which it is based, form the normative basis of most work in medical decision analysis. Recent work in the psychology of judgments and decisions indicates that people do not conform to the axioms of this theory and that these deviations occur in clinical reasoning as well as in the psychology laboratory. At issue is what to do now. The authors argue that the important next steps lie at the interface between descriptive, prescriptive, and normative accounts, all of which affect each other. They point to examples in which the simplest application of supposedly normative theory seems inappropriate, and suggest ways in which the tension between normative and de scriptive models may be resolved. Key words: decision analysis; expected utility theory; clinical reasoning; cognitive processes. (Med Decis Making 7:203-211, 1987)

Suggested Citation

  • John C. Hershey & Jonathan Baron, 1987. "Clinical Reasoning and Cognitive Processes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 7(4), pages 203-211, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:7:y:1987:i:4:p:203-211
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X8700700402
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X8700700402
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X8700700402?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. Hogarth, Robin M & Kunreuther, Howard, 1985. "Ambiguity and Insurance Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 386-390, May.
    2. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
    3. Shawn P. Curley & Stephen A. Eraker & J. Frank Yates, 1984. "An Investigation of Patient's Reactions to Therapeutic Uncertainty," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 4(4), pages 501-511, December.
    4. Sugden, Robert, 1986. "New Developments in the Theory of Choice under Uncertainty," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 1-24, January.
    5. Robin M. Hogarth & Spyros Makridakis, 1981. "Forecasting and Planning: An Evaluation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 115-138, February.
    6. Thomas S. Wallsten, 1981. "Physician and Medical Student Bias in Evaluating Diagnostic Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 1(2), pages 145-164, June.
    7. David E. Bell, 1982. "Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 961-981, October.
    8. Paul Slovic & Sarah Lichtenstein & Baruch Fischhoff, 1984. "Modeling the Societal Impact of Fatal Accidents," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(4), pages 464-474, April.
    9. Harold Bursztajn & Robert M. Hamm & Thomas G. Gutheil & Archie Brodsky, 1984. "The Decision-Analytic Approach to Medical Malpractice Law," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 4(4), pages 401-414, December.
    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. Zeelenberg, M., 1999. "The use of crying over spilled milk : A note on the rationality and functionality of regret," Other publications TiSEM 66ac04be-d1ee-4a0e-9e97-7, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    2. Chen Li & Zhihua Li & Peter Wakker, 2014. "If nudge cannot be applied: a litmus test of the readers’ stance on paternalism," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(3), pages 297-315, March.
    3. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto & Peter P. Wakker, 2001. "Making Descriptive Use of Prospect Theory to Improve the Prescriptive Use of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(11), pages 1498-1514, November.
    4. Raisa B. Deber & Vivek Goel, 1990. "Using Explicit Decision Rules to Manage Issues of Justice, Risk, and Ethics in Decision Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 10(3), pages 181-194, August.
    5. Gurmankin Levy, Andrea & Hershey, John C., 2006. "Distorting the probability of treatment success to justify treatment decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 52-58, September.
    6. 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.
    7. David Faro & Yuval Rottenstreich, 2006. "Affect, Empathy, and Regressive Mispredictions of Others' Preferences Under Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(4), pages 529-541, April.

    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. Herweg, Fabian & Müller, Daniel, 2021. "A comparison of regret theory and salience theory for decisions under risk," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    2. Colin F. Camerer & Howard Kunreuther, 1989. "Decision processes for low probability events: Policy implications," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(4), pages 565-592.
    3. Weber, Elke U. & Johnson, Eric J., 2012. "Psychology and behavioral economics lessons for the design of a green growth strategy," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6240, The World Bank.
    4. Bernasconi, Michele, 1992. "Different Frames for the Independence Axiom: An Experimental Investigation in Individual Decision Making under Risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 159-174, May.
    5. Raisa B. Deber & Vivek Goel, 1990. "Using Explicit Decision Rules to Manage Issues of Justice, Risk, and Ethics in Decision Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 10(3), pages 181-194, August.
    6. DeKay, Michael L. & Patiño-Echeverri, Dalia & Fischbeck, Paul S., 2009. "Distortion of probability and outcome information in risky decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 109(1), pages 79-92, May.
    7. Blavatskyy, Pavlo R., 2012. "The Troika paradox," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 236-239.
    8. Georgia Perakis & Guillaume Roels, 2008. "Regret in the Newsvendor Model with Partial Information," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 56(1), pages 188-203, February.
    9. Jinyi Hu, 2023. "Linguistic Multiple-Attribute Decision Making Based on Regret Theory and Minimax-DEA," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-14, October.
    10. Martín Egozcue & Xu Guo & Wing-Keung Wong, 2015. "Optimal output for the regret-averse competitive firm under price uncertainty," Eurasian Economic Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 5(2), pages 279-295, December.
    11. Jhunjhunwala, Tanushree, 2021. "Searching to avoid regret: An experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 298-319.
    12. van Dijk, Wilco W. & van der Pligt, Joop, 1997. "The Impact of Probability and Magnitude of Outcome on Disappointment and Elation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 277-284, March.
    13. Enrico G. De Giorgi & Thierry Post, 2011. "Loss Aversion with a State-Dependent Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(6), pages 1094-1110, June.
    14. van Dijk, W.W. & Zeelenberg, M. & van der Pligt, J., 1999. "Not having what you want versus having what you don't want : The impact of the type of negative outcome on the experience of disappointment and related emotions," Other publications TiSEM 5d1661b1-db82-4773-8ac4-5, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    15. Olivier Chanel & Graciela Chichilnisky, 2009. "The influence of fear in decisions: Experimental evidence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 271-298, December.
    16. Soora Rasouli & Harry Timmermans, 2017. "Specification of regret-based models of choice behaviour: formal analyses and experimental design based evidence," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(6), pages 1555-1576, November.
    17. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 803-843.
    18. Raquel M. Gaspar & Paulo M. Silva, 2023. "Investors’ perspective on portfolio insurance," Portuguese Economic Journal, Springer;Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestao, vol. 22(1), pages 49-79, January.
    19. Yuval Rottenstreich & Alex Markle & Johannes Müller-Trede, 2023. "Risky Sure Things," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(8), pages 4707-4720, August.
    20. Ulrich Schmidt & Stefan Traub, 2009. "An Experimental Investigation of the Disparity Between WTA and WTP for Lotteries," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 66(3), pages 229-262, March.

    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:7:y:1987:i:4:p:203-211. 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.