How bad is a 10% chance of losing a toe? Judgments of probabilistic conditions by doctors and laypeople

We presented a Web questionnaire to 139 physicians and medical researchers and 109 laypeople. The subjects made judgments of badness and importance of prevention for eight medical conditions at each of seven different probability levels. By assuming that the response to each of the 56 risks was monotonically related to transformations of the probability and of the disutility of the condition, we could assess the relative effect of probability and disutility on each subject’s judgments. Physicians’ judgments were more sensitive than laypeople’s judgments to changes in probability. Older and female laypeople were less sensitive to probability (and correspondingly, more responsive to differences in severity among medical conditions). Laypeople varied more than physicians in their responsiveness to probability. These results point to general individual differences in the effect of probability on evaluations of medical risks. They may also provide insight into causes and noncauses of physician—patient miscommunication.

[1]  N. Kressin,et al.  Racial Differences in How Patients Perceive Physician Communication Regarding Cardiac Testing , 2002, Medical care.

[2]  Clairice T. Veit,et al.  Scale convergence as a criterion for rescaling: Information integration with difference, ratio, and averaging tasks , 1974 .

[3]  Howard Kunreuther,et al.  Decision making under ignorance: Arguing with yourself , 1995 .

[4]  Iddo Gal,et al.  Understanding Repeated Simple Choices , 1996 .

[5]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[6]  Barbara A. Mellers,et al.  Representations of Risk Judgments , 1994 .

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

[8]  D. R. Lehman,et al.  Teaching reasoning. , 1987, Science.

[9]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Cognitive processes in preference reversals , 1989 .

[10]  Kimihiko Yamagishi When a 12.86% Mortality is More Dangerous than 24.14%: Implications for Risk Communication , 1997 .

[11]  Jonathan Barzilai,et al.  On the foundations of measurement , 2001, 2001 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. e-Systems and e-Man for Cybernetics in Cyberspace (Cat.No.01CH37236).

[12]  A. Tversky Additivity, utility, and subjective probability , 1967 .

[13]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[14]  Gary H. McClelland,et al.  Probability and utility of endangered species preservation programs , 1996 .

[15]  S. Domchek,et al.  Patients' resistance to risk information in genetic counseling for BRCA1/2. , 2005, Archives of internal medicine.

[16]  O. Huber,et al.  Active information search and complete information presentation in naturalistic risky decision tasks , 1997 .

[17]  Jonathan Baron,et al.  Intended Message Versus Message Received in Hypothetical Physician Risk Communications: Exploring the Gap , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[18]  A. Tversky,et al.  Contingent weighting in judgment and choice , 1988 .

[19]  Jaap Van Brakel,et al.  Foundations of measurement , 1983 .

[20]  Jonathan Baron,et al.  Decision-making biases in children and early adolescents: exploratory studies , 1993 .