The effect of numerical statements of risk on trust and comfort with hypothetical physician risk communication

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 265-271

  Gurmankin, Andrea D ^a,d   Baron, Jonathan ^b   Armstrong, Katrina ^b,c  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^d NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Numeracy; Risk communication; Trust

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER RISK; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MEDICAL INFORMATION; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PHYSICIAN RISK COMMUNICATION; QUESTIONNAIRE; RISK; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; SYMPTOMATOLOGY; TRUST;

HUMANS; PENNSYLVANIA; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; QUESTIONNAIRES; RISK; TRUST;

EID: 2442700370     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X04265482     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Mackillop W, Stewart WE, Ginsburg AD, Stewart SS. Cancer patients' perceptions of their disease and its treatment. Br J Cancer. 1988;58:355-8.
2. Skinner C, Kreuter M, Korbin S, Strecher V. Perceived and actual breast cancer risk: optimistic and pessimistic biases. J Health Psychol. 1998;3(2):181-93.
3. Lerman C, Lustbader E, Rimer B, Daly M, et al. Effects of individualized breast cancer risk counseling: a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;87:286-92.
4. Scroggins T, Bartley T. Enhancing cancer control: assessing cancer knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs in disadvantaged communities. J La State Med Soc. 1999;151:202-8.
5. Price J, Desmond SM, Slenker S. Urban black women's perception of breast cancer and mammography. J Community Health. 1992;17:191-204.
6. Leventhal H, Meyer D, Nerenz D. The common sense representation of illness danger. In: Rachman S, ed. Contributions to Medical Psychology. Vol. 2. Oxford (UK): Pergamon; 1980.
7. Ley P. Complaints made by hospital staff and patients: a review of the literature. Bull Br Psychol Soc. 1972;25:115-20.
8. Collins T, Clark J, Petersen L, Kressin N. Racial differences in how patients perceive physician communication regarding cardiac testing. Med Care. 2002;40 Suppl:127-34.
9. Eidinger R, Schapira D. Cancer patients' insight into their treatment, prognosis, and unconventional therapies. Cancer. 1984;53:2736-2740.
10. Cawley M, Kostic J, Cappello C. Informational and psychosocial needs of women choosing conservative surgery/primary radiation for early stage breast cancer. Cancer Nurs. 1990;13:90-4.
11. Higginson I, Wade A, McCarthy M. Palliative care: views of patients and their families. BMJ. 1990;301:277-81.
12. Mosconi P, Meyerowitz BE, Liberati MC, Liberati A. Disclosure of breast cancer diagnosis: patient and physician reports. Ann Oncol. 1991;2:273-80.
13. Wallsten T, Budescu D, Papoport A, et al. Measuring the vague meanings of probability terms. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1986;115(4):348-65.
14. Beyth-Marom R. How probable is probable? A numerical translation of verbal probability expressions. J Forecast. 1982;1:257-69.
15. Bryant G, Norman GR. Expressions of probability: words and numbers. N Engl J Med. 1980;302:411.
16. Budescu D, Wallsten T. Consistency in interpretation of probabilistic phrases. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1985;36:391-405.
17. von Winterfelt D, Edwards W. Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1986.
18. Nakao M, Axelrod S. Numbers are better than words: verbal specifications of frequency have no place in medicine. Am J Med. 1983;74:1061-5.
19. Lipkus I, Samsa G, Rimer BK. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:37-44.
20. Zimmer A. Verbal vs. numerical processing of subjective probabilities. In: Scholtz R, ed. Decision Making under Uncertainty. New York: North-Holland; 1983. p 159-82.
21. Budescu D, Weinberg S, Wallsten T. Decisions based on numerically and verbally expressed uncertainties. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1988;14(2):281-94.
22. Windschitl P, Weber E. The interpretation of "likely" depends on the context, but "70%" is 70%-right? The influence of associative processes on perceived certainty. J Exp Psychol. 1999;25(6):1514-33.
23. Watson S, Weiss J, Donnell M. Fuzzy decision analysis. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern C. 1979;9(1):1-9.
24. Olson M, Budescu D. Patterns of preference for numerical and verbal probabilities. J Behav Decis Making. 1997;10:117-31.
25. Brun W, Teigen K. Verbal probabilities: ambiguous, context-dependent, or both? Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1988;41:390-404.
26. Erev I, Cohen BL. Verbal versus numerical probabilities: efficiency, biases, and the preference paradox. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1990;45:1-18.
27. Baron J, Siepmann M. Using Web questionnaires for judgment and decision making research. In: Birnbaum MH, ed. Psychological Experiments on the Internet. New York: Academic Press; 2000.
28. Birnbaum M. Psychological Experiments on the Internet. New York: Academic Press; 2000.
29. Birnbaum M. Testing critical properties of decision making on the Internet. Psychol Sci. 1999;10:399-407.
30. McGraw K, Tew MD, Williams JE. The integrity of Web-delivered experiments: can you trust the data? Psychol Sci. 2000;11:502-6.
31. Babcock L, Gelfand M, Small D, Stayn H. The propensity to initiate negotiations: toward a broader understanding of negotiation behavior. J Organ Behav. Forthcoming.
32. Gurmankin A, Baron J, Armstrong K. The message sent versus message received in hypothetical physician risk communications: exploring the gap. Risk Anal. Forthcoming.
33. Gamble V. Under the shadow of Tuskegee: African Americans and health care (public health then and now). Am J Public Health. 1997;87(11):1173-778.
34. Gray B. Trust and trustworthy care in the managed care era. Health Aff. 1997;16(1):34-49.
35. Kass N. Trust: the fragile foundation of contemporary biomedical research. Hastings Cent Rep. 1996;26(5):25-9.
36. Mechanic D. Changing medical organization and the erosion of trust. Milbank Q. 1996;74(2):171-89.
37. Hallowell N, Statham H, Murton F, Green J, Richards M. "Talking about chance": the presentation of risk information during genetic counseling for breast and ovarian cancer. J Genet Couns. 1997;6(3): 269-86.
38. Heilbrun K, Philipson J, Berman L, Warren J. Risk communication: clinicians' reported approaches and perceived values. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1999;27(3):397-406.