The framing effect: Medical implications;Effetto framing: Implicazioni in ambito medico

Annali Italiani di Medicina Interna

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 1-9

  Mazzocco, Ketti ^a   Cherubini, Paolo ^b   Rumiati, Rino ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TRENTO   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MILANO BICOCCA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Framing effects; Health behavior; Medical decision making; Presentation of information; Risk perception

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; INFORMATION SCIENCE; REVIEW;

DECISION MAKING; INFORMATION THEORY;

EID: 33644672219     PISSN: 03939340     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (53)

1. Grice HP. Logic and conversation. In: Cole P, Morgan JL, eds. Syntax and semantics: volume 3. Speech acts. New York, NY: Academic Press, 1997: 41-58.
2. Hilton DJ. The social context of reasoning: conversational inference and rational judgement. Psychol Bull 1995; 118: 248-71.
3. Reyna VF, Brainerd CJ. Fuzzy-trace theory and framing effects in choice: gist extraction, truncation, and conversion. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 1991; 4: 249-62.
4. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981; 211: 453-8.
5. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. Behavioral decision theory. Annu Rev Psychol 1977; 28: 1-39.
6. Fagley NS, Miller PM. The effect of framing on choice: interactions with risk-taking propensity, cognitive style, and sex. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 1990; 16: 496-510.
7. Frisch D. Reasons for framing effects. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1993; 54: 399-429.
8. Kühberger A. The framing of decisions: a new look at old problems. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1995; 62: 230-40.
9. Druckman JN. Evaluating framing effects. J Econ Psychol 2001; 22: 91-101.
10. Bless H, Betsch T, Franzen A. Framing the framing effect: the impact of context cues on solutions to the "Asian disease" problem. European Journal of Social Psychology 1998; 28: 287-91.
11. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica 1979; 47: 263-91.
12. Edwards A, Elwyn G, Covey J, Matthews E, Pill R. Presenting risk information: a review of the effects of "framing" and other manipulations on patient outcomes. J Health Commun 2001; 6: 61-82.
13. Levin IP, Schneider SL, Gaeth GJ. All frames are not created equal: a typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1998; 76: 149-88.
14. Kühberger A. The influence of framing on risky decisions: a meta-analysis. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1998; 75: 23-55.
15. McNeil BJ, Pauker SG, Sox HC, et al. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N Engl J Med 1982; 306: 1259-62.
16. McNeil BJ, Weichselbaum R, Pauker SG. Fallacy of the five-year survival in lung cancer. N Engl J Med 1978; 299: 1397-401.
17. Meyerowitz BE, Chaiken S. The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol 1987; 52: 500-10.
18. Rothman AJ, Salovey P. Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: the role of message framing. Psychol Bull 1997; 121: 3-19.
19. Cioffi D. Asymmetry of doubt in medical self-diagnosis: the ambiguity of "uncertain wellness". J Pers Soc Psychol 1991; 62: 969-80.
20. Meyerowitz BE, Wilson DK, Chaiken S. Loss-framed messages increase breast self-examination for women who perceive risk. In: Proceedings of the APA. New York, NY: APA Press, 1991.
21. Banks SM, Salovey P, Greener S, et al. The effects of message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychol 1995; 14: 178-84.
22. Schneider TR, Salovey P, Apanovitch AM, et al. The effects of message framing and ethnic targeting on mammography use among low-income women. Health Psychol 2001; 20: 256-66.
23. Steffen VJ, Sternberg L, Teegarden LA, et al. Practice and persuasive frame: effects on beliefs, intention, and performance of a cancer self-examination. J Appl Soc Psychol 1994; 24: 897-925.
24. Maheswaran D, Meyers-Levi J. The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research 1990; 27: 361-7.
25. Block LG, Keller PA. When to accentuate the negative: the effect of perceived efficacy and message framing on intentions to perform a health-related behavior. Journal of Marketing Research 1995; 32: 192-203.
26. Kalichman SC, Coley B. Context framing to enhance HIV-antibody-testing messages targeted to African American women. Health Psychol 1995; 14: 247-54.
27. Devos-Comby L, Salovey P. Applying persuasion strategies to alter HIV-relevant thoughts and behavior. Review of General Psychology2002; 6: 287-304.
28. Marteau TM. Framing of information: its influence upon decisions of doctors and patients. Br J Soc Psychol 1989; 28 (Part 1): 89-94.
29. Welkenhuysen M, Evers-Kiebooms G, d'Ydewalle G. The language of uncertainty in genetic risk communication: framing and verbal versus numerical information. Patient Educ Couns 2001; 43: 179-87.
30. Herrnstein RJ. Rationale choice theory: necessary but not sufficient. Am Psychol 1990; 45: 356-67.
31. Weinstein ND. The precaution adoption process. Health Psychol 1988; 7: 355-86.
32. Rothman AJ, Martino SC, Bedell BT, et al. The systematic influence of gain- and loss-framed messages on interest in and use of different types of health behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 1999; 25: 1355-69.
33. Robberson MR, Rogers RW. Beyond fear appeals: negative and positive persuasive appeals to health and self-esteem. J Appl Soc Psychol 1988; 13: 277-87.
34. Smith SM, Petty RE. Message framing and persuasion: a message processing analyses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 1996; 22: 257-68.
35. Cacioppo JT, Petty RE, Feinstein J, et al. Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: the life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychol Bull 1996; 119: 197-253.
36. Christophersen ER, Gyulay JE. Parental compliance with car seat usage: a positive approach with long-term follow-up. J Pediatr Psychol 1981; 6: 301-12.
37. Treiber FA. A comparison of the positive and negative consequences approaches upon car restraint usage. J Pediatr Psychol 1986; 11: 15-24.
38. Linville PW, Fischer GW, Fischhoff B. AIDS risk perceptions and decision biases. In: Pryor JB, Reeder GD, eds. The social psychology of HIV infection. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1993: 5-38.
39. Rothman AJ, Salovey P, Antone C, et al. The influence of message framing on intentions to perform health behaviors. J Exp Soc Psychol 1993; 29: 408-33.
40. Detweiler JB, Bedell BT, Salovey P, et al. Message framing and sunscreen use: gain-framed messages motivate beach-goers. Health Psychol 1999; 18: 189-96.
41. Schneider TR, Salovey P, Pallonen U, et al. Visual and auditory message framing effects on tobacco smoking. J Appl Soc Psychol 2001; 31: 667-82.
42. Levin IP, Gaeth GJ, Schreiber J, et al. A new look of framing effects: distribution of effect sizes, individual differences, and independence of types of effects. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 2002; 88: 411-29.
43. Levin P, Schnittjer SK, Thee SL. Information framing effects in social and personal decisions. J Exp Soc Psychol 1988; 24: 520-9.
44. Wilson DK, Kaplan RM, Schneiderman L. Framing of decisions and selection of alternatives in health care. Soc Behav 1987; 2: 51-59.
45. O'Connor AM, Boyd NF, Tritchler DL, Kriukov Y, Sutherland H, Till JE. Eliciting preferences for alternative cancer drug treatments. The influence of framing, medium, and rater variables. Med Decis Making 1985; 5: 453-63.
46. Christensen C, Heckerling PS, Mackesy ME, et al. Framing biases among expert and novice physicians. Acad Med 1991; 9 (Suppl): S76-S78.
47. LeBoeuf RA, Shafir E. Deep thoughts and shallow frames: on the susceptibility to framing effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 2003; 16: 77-92.
48. Fagley NS, Miller PM. The effects of decision framing on choice of risky and uncertain options. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1987; 39: 264-77.
49. Krishnamurthy P, Carter P, Blair E. Attribute framing and goal framing in health decisions. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 2001; 85: 382-99.
50. Christensen C, Heckerling PS, Mackesy-Amiti ME, et al. Pervasiveness of framing effects among physicians and medical students. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 1995; 8: 169-80.
51. Siminoff LA, Fettig JH. Effects of outcome framing on treatment decisions in the real world: impact of framing on adjuvant breast cancer decisions. Med Decis Making 1989; 9: 262-71.
52. Elstein AS. Framing effects. Med Decis Making 1990; 10: 148.
53. Cherubini P, Rumiati R, Rossi D, et al. Improving attitudes toward prostate examinations by loss-framed appeals. J Appl Soc Psychol, in press.