The Default Effect in End-of-Life Medical Treatment Preferences

Background. Living wills are intended to preserve patient autonomy, but recent studies suggest that they do not always have their desired effect. One possible explanation is that living wills do not capture the authentic preferences of the patients who write them but instead reflect transient contextual effects on preferences. Purpose. Two experiments examined whether end-of-life treatment preferences expressed in a living will were influenced by the presence of default options. Method. College students participated in 2 Web-based questionnaire experiments (Ns = 182 and 51). Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 or 3 default conditions. Results. In experiment 1, participants expressed significantly different treatment preferences in 3 normatively equivalent, check box—formatted living wills that were either positively worded (“indicate medical treatments you would want administered”), negatively worded (“indicate treatments you would want withheld”), or of forced-choice format (P = 0.01). Participants expressed a stronger preference to receive treatment in the negatively worded document than in the positively worded document as a consequence of preferring the default option in both cases. Participants in experiment 2 were also influenced by the presence of a default option, but this time, while writing narrative living wills after viewing 1 of 2 sample living wills. In this experiment, the sample living will represented the default preference. The participants' own living wills tended to express preferences similar to those in the sample (P = 0.0005). Conclusion. The default manipulations in both experiments had potent but transient effects and influenced what participants wrote in their living wills but not their responses to later medical scenarios. Expression of end-of-life treatment preferences appears to be temporarily constructed from the decision-making context. These results have implications for surrogate decision making and the use of the living will as a tool to preserve patient autonomy.

[1]  Paul Rozin,et al.  Food and life, pleasure and worry, among American college students: gender differences and regional similarities. , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[2]  A. Tversky,et al.  On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. , 1982, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  A. Tversky,et al.  Choices, Values, and Frames , 2000 .

[4]  Peter H. Ditto,et al.  Accuracy of primary care and hospital-based physicians' predictions of elderly outpatients' treatment preferences with and without advance directives. , 2001, Archives of internal medicine.

[5]  G. Chapman,et al.  The Influence of Default Options on the Expression of End-of-Life Treatment Preferences in Advance Directives , 2007, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[6]  Jonathan Baron,et al.  Behavioral Law and Economics: Reluctance to Vaccinate: Omission Bias and Ambiguity , 1990 .

[7]  John W. Payne,et al.  The adaptive decision maker: Name index , 1993 .

[8]  Eldar Shafir,et al.  Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others , 1993, Memory & cognition.

[9]  R. Houts,et al.  Advance directives as acts of communication: a randomized controlled trial. , 2001, Archives of internal medicine.

[10]  Daniel G Goldstein,et al.  Making better decisions: from measuring to constructing preferences. , 2005, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

[11]  Jonathan Baron,et al.  Reference Points and Omission Bias , 1994 .

[12]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[13]  Gerald L. Lohse,et al.  Defaults, Framing and Privacy: Why Opting In-Opting Out1 , 2002 .

[14]  A. Fagerlin,et al.  Enough. The failure of the living will. , 2004, The Hastings Center report.

[15]  Stacey R. Finkelstein,et al.  Recommendations Implicit in Policy Defaults , 2006, Psychological science.

[16]  J. Baron,et al.  Omission and commission in judgment and choice , 1991 .

[17]  Gerald L. Lohse,et al.  On site: to opt-in or opt-out?: it depends on the question , 2001, CACM.

[18]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  The adaptive decision maker , 1993 .

[19]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  The Construction of Preference: Do Defaults Save Lives? , 2006 .

[20]  Maurice E. Schweitzer,et al.  DISENTANGLING STATUS QUO AND OMISSION EFFECTS: AN EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS , 1994 .