Decision psychology and health preferences: Further explorations of medical decisions for individuals and for groups

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 39-44

  DeKay, Michael L ^a,b   Nickerson, Carol A E ^c,d,e   Ubel, Peter A ^c,d,f   Hershey, John C ^e   Spranca, Mark D ^g   Asch, David A ^c,d,f  

^a CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^g RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Decision making; Expected utility theory; Practice guidelines; Risk; Survey research

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; INDIVIDUALIZATION; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; PHYSICIAN; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; GROUP PROCESS; HUMAN; INDIVIDUALITY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; QUESTIONNAIRE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; GROUP PROCESSES; HUMANS; INDIVIDUALITY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PRACTICE GUIDELINES; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 0033988030     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989x0002000105     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Woo B, Woo B, Cook EF, Weisberg M, Goldman L. Screening procedures in the asymptomatic adult: comparison of physicians' recommendations, patients' desires, published guidelines, and actual practice. JAMA. 1985;254:1480-4.
2. Elstein AS, Holzman GB, Ravitch MM, et al. Comparison of physicians' decisions regarding estrogen replacement therapy for menopausal women and decisions derived from a decision analytic model. Am J Med. 1986;80:246-58.
3. Kosecoff J, Kanouse DE, Rogers WH, McCloskey L, Winslow CM, Brook RH. Effects of the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Program on physician practice. JAMA. 1987;258:2708-13.
4. Lomas J, Anderson GM, Domnick-Pierre K, Vayda E, Enkin MW, Hannah WJ. Do practice guidelines guide practice? The effect of a consensus statement on the practice of physicians. N Engl J Med. 1989;321:1306-11.
5. Sackett DL. Inference and decision at the bedside. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:309-16.
6. Asch DA, Hershey JC. Why some health policies don't make sense at the bedside. Ann Intern Med. 1995;122:846-50.
7. Timmermans DRM, Sprij AJ, de Bel CE. The discrepancy between daily practice and the policy of a decision-analytic model: the management of fever of unknown origin. Med Decis Making. 1996;16:357-66.
8. Redelmeier DA, TVersky A. Discrepancy between decisions for individual patients and for groups. N Engl J Med. 1990; 322:1162-4.
9. Hux JE, Levinton CM, Naylor CD. Prescribing propensity: influence of life-expectancy gains and drug costs. J Gen Intern Med. 1994;9:195-201.
10. DeKay ML, Hershey JC, Spranca MD, Ubel PA, Asch DA. More (or less) on the distinction between individuals and groups [abstr]. Med Decis Making. 1997;17:543.
11. Coombs CH, Bowen JN. A test of VE-theories of risk and the effect of the central limit theorem. Acta Psychol. 1971;35:15-28.
12. Montgomery H, Adelbratt T. Gambling decisions and information about expected value. Organ Behav Hum Perform. 1982;29:39-57.
13. Keren G, Wagenaar WA. Violation of expected utility theory in unique and repeated gambles. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1987;13:387-91.
14. Joag SG, Mowen JC, Gentry JW. Risk perception in a simulated industrial purchasing task: the effects of single versus multi-play decisions. J Behav Decis Making. 1990;3:91-108.
15. Wedell DH, Böckenholt U. Moderation of preference reversals in the long run. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1990;16:429-38.
16. Keren G. Additional tests of utility theory in unique and repeated gambles. J Behav Decis Making. 1991;4:297-304.
17. Redelmeier DA, Tversky A. On the framing of multiple prospects. Psychol Sci. 1992;3:191-3.
18. Koehler JJ, Gibbs BJ, Hogarth RM. Shattering the illusion of control: multi-shot versus single-shot gambles. J Behav Decis Making. 1994;7:183-91.
19. von Neuman J, Morgenstern O. The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1947.
20. Savage LJ. The Foundations of Statistics. New York: Wiley, 1954.
21. Teigen KH. Overestimation of subjective probabilities. Scand J Psychol. 1974;15:56-62.
22. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychol Rev. 1983;90:293-315.
23. Gigerenzer G. How to make cognitive illusions disappear: beyond "heuristics and biases." Eur Rev Soc Psychol. 1991;2: 83-115.
24. Gigerenzer G, Hoffrage U. How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: frequency formats. Psychol Rev. 1995;102:684-704.
25. Cosmides L, Tooby J. Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty. Cognition. 1996;58:1-73.
26. Gigerenzer G. The psychology of good judgment: frequency formats and simple algorithms. Med Decis Making. 1996;16: 273-80.
27. Brenner LA, Koehler DJ, Liberman V, Tversky A. Overconfidence in probability and frequency judgments: a critical examination. Organ Behav Hum Decis Proc. 1996;65:212-9.
28. Jones SK, Jones KT, Frisch D. Biases of probability assessment: a comparison of frequency and single-case judgments. Organ Behav Hum Decis Proc. 1996;61:109-22.
29. Kahneman D, Tversky A. On the reality of cognitive illusions. Psychol Rev. 1996;103:582-91.
30. Gigerenzer G. On narrow norms and vague heuristics: a reply to Kahneman and Tversky (1996). Psychol Rev. 1996;103: 592-6.
31. Lewis C, Keren G. On the difficulties underlying Bayesian reasoning: a comment on Gigerenzer and Hoffrage. Psychol Rev. 1999;106:411-6.
32. Mellers BA, McGraw AP. How to improve Bayesian reasoning: comment on Gigerenzer and Hoffrage (1995). Psychol Rev. 1999;106:417-24.
33. Gigerenzer G, Hoffrage U. Overcoming difficulties in Bayesian reasoning: a reply to Lewis and Keren (1999) and Mellers and McGraw (1999). Psychol Rev. 1999;106:425-30.
34. Sawilowsky SS, Blair RC, Higgins JJ. An investigation of the Type I error and power properties of the rank transform procedure in factorial ANOVA. J Educ Stat. 1989;14:255-67.
35. ® System. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, 1999.