IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v39y2019i4p792-804.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reaping the Benefits and Avoiding the Risks: Unrealistic Optimism in the Health Domain

Author

Listed:
  • Yaniv Hanoch
  • Jonathan Rolison
  • Alexandra M. Freund

Abstract

People's perceptions of benefits and risks play a key role in their acceptance or rejection of medical interventions, yet these perceptions may be poorly calibrated. This online study with N = 373 adults aged 19–76 years focused on unrealistic optimism in the health domain. Participants indicated how likely they were to experience benefits and risks associated with medical conditions and completed objective and subjective numeracy scales. Participants exhibited optimistic views about the likelihood of experiencing the benefits and the side effects of treatment options described in the scenarios. Objective and subjective numeracy were not associated with more accurate ratings. Moreover, participants’ underestimation of the risks was significantly greater than their overestimation of the benefits. From an applied perspective, these results suggest that clinicians may need to ensure that patients do not underestimate risks of medical interventions, and that they convey realistic expectations about the benefits that can be obtained with certain procedures.

Suggested Citation

  • Yaniv Hanoch & Jonathan Rolison & Alexandra M. Freund, 2019. "Reaping the Benefits and Avoiding the Risks: Unrealistic Optimism in the Health Domain," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 792-804, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:39:y:2019:i:4:p:792-804
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13204
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13204
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13204?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:9:y:2014:i:2:p:152-158 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Christina Kreuzmair & Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller, 2017. "Does Iconicity in Pictographs Matter? The Influence of Iconicity and Numeracy on Information Processing, Decision Making, and Liking in an Eye‐Tracking Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 546-556, March.
    3. Nathan F. Dieckmann & Ellen Peters & Robin Gregory, 2015. "At Home on the Range? Lay Interpretations of Numerical Uncertainty Ranges," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1281-1295, July.
    4. Isaac M. Lipkus & Greg Samsa & Barbara K. Rimer, 2001. "General Performance on a Numeracy Scale among Highly Educated Samples," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 37-44, February.
    5. Nathan F. Dieckmann & Paul Slovic & Ellen M. Peters, 2009. "The Use of Narrative Evidence and Explicit Likelihood by Decisionmakers Varying in Numeracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(10), pages 1473-1488, October.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:2:p:116-123 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Yaniv Hanoch & Jonathan J. Rolison & Alexandra M. Freund, 2018. "Does Medical Risk Perception and Risk Taking Change with Age?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 917-928, May.
    8. Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher & Dylan M. Smith & Peter A. Ubel & Angela Fagerlin, 2007. "Validation of the Subjective Numeracy Scale: Effects of Low Numeracy on Comprehension of Risk Communications and Utility Elicitations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 663-671, September.
    9. Vanya Van Belle & Ben Van Calster, 2015. "Visualizing Risk Prediction Models," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-16, July.
    10. Carmen Keller & Michael Siegrist & Heinz Gutscher, 2006. "The Role of the Affect and Availability Heuristics in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 631-639, June.
    11. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich, 2001. "Better Negative than Positive? Evidence of a Bias for Negative Information about Possible Health Dangers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 199-206, February.
    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. Prati, Alberto & Saucet, Charlotte, 2024. "The causal effect of a health treatment on beliefs, stated preferences and memories," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    2. Nuru Kipato & Peter Dorward & Graham Clarkson, 2023. "A Lower Threat than I Thought: How the Analysis of the Interdependence between Risks Influences Smallholder Farmers’ Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-19, October.
    3. Brust, Michelle & Gebhardt, Winifred A. & van Bruggen, Sytske & Janssen, Veronica & Numans, Mattijs E. & Kiefte-de Jong, Jessica C., 2023. "Making sense of a myocardial infarction in relation to changing lifestyle in the five months following the event: An interpretative phenomenological analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 338(C).
    4. Dariusz Dolinski & Wojciech Kulesza & Paweł Muniak & Barbara Dolinska & Ali Derakhshan & Tomasz Grzyb, 2021. "Research on Unrealistic Optimism among HoReCa Workers as a Possible Future Hotspot of Infections," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-15, November.
    5. Kailin Cheng & Jiangqun Liao, 2023. "Coping with Coronavirus Pandemic: Risk Perception Predicts Life Optimism," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 351-371, January.
    6. Choi, Shinae L. & Lee, Yoon G., 2023. "Financial hardship and change in emotional well-being before to during COVID-19 pandemic among middle-aged and older Americans: Moderating effects of internal coping resources," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 317(C).
    7. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.

    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. Ian G. J. Dawson, 2018. "Assessing the Effects of Information About Global Population Growth on Risk Perceptions and Support for Mitigation and Prevention Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2222-2241, October.
    2. Yaniv Hanoch & Talya Miron-Shatz & Mary Himmelstein, 2010. "Genetic testing and risk interpretation: How do women understand lifetime risk results?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(2), pages 116-123, April.
    3. William J. Burns & Ellen Peters & Paul Slovic, 2012. "Risk Perception and the Economic Crisis: A Longitudinal Study of the Trajectory of Perceived Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 659-677, April.
    4. Brandon Garrett & Gregory Mitchell, 2013. "How Jurors Evaluate Fingerprint Evidence: The Relative Importance of Match Language, Method Information, and Error Acknowledgment," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(3), pages 484-511, September.
    5. Garcia-Retamero, Rocio & Hoffrage, Ulrich, 2013. "Visual representation of statistical information improves diagnostic inferences in doctors and their patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 27-33.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:363-393 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Ian G. J. Dawson & Johnnie E. V. Johnson & Michelle A. Luke, 2013. "Helping Individuals to Understand Synergistic Risks: An Assessment of Message Contents Depicting Mechanistic and Probabilistic Concepts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(5), pages 851-865, May.
    8. Nicolas Eber & Patrick Roger & Tristan Roger, 2024. "Finance and intelligence: An overview of the literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 503-554, April.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:4:p:412-422 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. David R. Mandel & Daniel Irwin, 2021. "Facilitating sender-receiver agreement in communicated probabilities: Is it best to use words, numbers or both?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(2), pages 363-393, March.
    11. Becky L. Choma & David Sumantry & Yaniv Hanoch, 2019. "Right-wing ideology and numeracy: A perception of greater ability, but poorer performance," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(4), pages 412-422, July.
    12. Marie-Anne Durand & Renata W Yen & James O’Malley & Glyn Elwyn & Julien Mancini, 2020. "Graph literacy matters: Examining the association between graph literacy, health literacy, and numeracy in a Medicaid eligible population," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-14, November.
    13. Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Kevin E. Tiede & Rocio Garcia-Retamero, 2023. "The Lure of Beauty: People Select Representations of Statistical Information Largely Based on Attractiveness, Not Comprehensibility," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(7-8), pages 774-788, October.
    14. Fasolo, Barbara & Bana e Costa, Carlos A., 2014. "Tailoring value elicitation to decision makers' numeracy and fluency: Expressing value judgments in numbers or words," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 83-90.
    15. Carmen Keller, 2011. "Using a Familiar Risk Comparison Within a Risk Ladder to Improve Risk Understanding by Low Numerates: A Study of Visual Attention," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(7), pages 1043-1054, July.
    16. Yasmina Okan & Eric R. Stone & Wändi Bruine de Bruin, 2018. "Designing Graphs that Promote Both Risk Understanding and Behavior Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 929-946, May.
    17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:2:p:116-123 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Carmen Keller & Michael Siegrist & Vivianne Visschers, 2009. "Effect of Risk Ladder Format on Risk Perception in High‐ and Low‐Numerate Individuals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(9), pages 1255-1264, September.
    19. Carissa Bonner & Lyndal J. Trevena & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Paul K. J. Han & Yasmina Okan & Elissa Ozanne & Ellen Peters & Daniëlle Timmermans & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2021. "Current Best Practice for Presenting Probabilities in Patient Decision Aids: Fundamental Principles," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 821-833, October.
    20. Peter John Robinson & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Fujin Zhou, 2021. "An experimental study of charity hazard: The effect of risky and ambiguous government compensation on flood insurance demand," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 275-318, December.
    21. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:1:p:34-40 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Fuchsman, Dillon & McGee, Josh B. & Zamarro, Gema, 2023. "Teachers’ willingness to pay for retirement benefits: A national stated preferences experiment," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    23. Fuchsman, Dillon & McGee, Josh & Zamarro, Gema, 2022. "Teachers’ Knowledge and Preparedness for Retirement: Results from a Nationally Representative Teacher Survey," Working Papers 21-5, Sinquefield Center for Applied Economic Research, Saint Louis University.
    24. Angela Bearth & Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2016. "“The Dose Makes the Poison”: Informing Consumers About the Scientific Risk Assessment of Food Additives," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 130-144, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:riskan:v:39:y:2019:i:4:p:792-804. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.