Anchoring-and-adjustment bias in communication of disease risk

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 193-201

  Senay, Ibrahim ^a,b   Kaphingst, Kimberly A ^a  

^a NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

Anchoring and adjustment heuristic; Genetic counseling; Health protective behavior (Med Decis Making 2009; 29:193 "201); Information processing; Risk communication

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; GENETIC ANALYSIS; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MOTIVATION; PERCEPTION; RISK FACTOR; STIGMA; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

COMMUNICATION; DECISION MAKING; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION TO DISEASE; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; PERCEPTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK REDUCTION BEHAVIOR; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 64549158493     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08327395     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Collins FS, McKusick VA Implications of the human genome project for medical science. JAMA. 2001 ; 285: 540-4.
2. Guttmacher AE, Collins FS Realizing the promise of genomics in biomedical research. JAMA. 2005 ; 294: 1399-402.
3. Colditz GA, Atwood KA, Emmons K., et al. Harvard report on cancer prevention, volume 4: Harvard Cancer Risk Index. Cancer Cause Control. 2000 ; 11: 477-88. (Pubitemid 30342837)
4. Emmons KM, Wong M., Puelo E., Weinstein N., Fletcher R., Colditz G. Tailored computer-based cancer risk communication: correcting colorectal cancer risk perception. J Health Commun. 2004 ; 9: 127-41. (Pubitemid 38507301)
5. Bowen DJ, Burke W., Culver JO, Press N., Crystal S. Effects of counseling Ashkenazi Jewish women about breast cancer risk. Cultur Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol. 2006 ; 12: 45-56. (Pubitemid 44220015)
6. Helmes AW, Culver JO, Bowen DJ Results of a randomized study of telephone versus in-person breast cancer risk counseling. Patient Educ Couns. 2006 ; 64: 96-103.
7. Vernon SW Risk perception and risk communication for cancer screening behaviors: a review. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999 ; 25: 101-19.
8. Janz NK, Becker MH The Health Belief Model: a decade later. Health Educ Q. 1984 ; 11: 1-47.
9. Aiken LS, West SG, Woodward CK, Reno RR, Reynolds KD Increasing screening mammography in asymptomatic women: evaluation of a second-generation, theory-based program. Health Psychol. 1994 ; 13: 526-38.
10. Rogers RW, Prentice-Dunn S. Protection motivation theory. In Gochman DS, ed. Handbook of Health Behavior Research 1: Personal and Social Determinants. New York: Plenum Press; 1997. p 113-32.
11. Witte K. Fear as motivator, fear as inhibitor: using the Extended Parallel Process Model to explain fear appeal successes and failures. In Andersen PA, Guerrero LK, eds. Handbook of Communication and Emotion: Research, Theory, Application and Contexts. New York: Academic Press ; 1998. p 423-49.
12. Wright A., French DP, Weinman J., Marteau TM Can genetic risk information enhance motivation for smoking cessation? An analogue study. Health Psychol. 2006 ; 25: 749-52.
13. Bowen DJ, Christensen CL, Powers D., Graves DR, Andersen CAM. Effects of counseling and ethnic identity on perceived risk and cancer worry in African-American women. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 1998 ; 5: 365-79. (Pubitemid 128513887)
14. Green MJ, Peterson SK, Baker MW, et al. Effect of a computer-based decision aid on knowledge, perceptions, and intentions about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004 ; 292: 442-52. (Pubitemid 38988953)
15. Kahneman D., Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979 ; 42: 263-91.
16. Sherman SJ, Cialdini RB, Schwartzman DF, Reynolds KD Imagining can heighten or lower the perceived likelihood of contracting a disease: the mediating effect of ease of imagery. In Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D, eds. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press ; 2002. p 98-102.
17. Slovic P., Finucane ML, Peters E., MacGregor D. Risk as analysis and risk as feeling: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal. 2004 ; 24: 311-21. (Pubitemid 38620129)
18. Lauriola M., Russo PM, Lucidi F., Violani C., Levin IP The role of personality in positively and negatively framed risky health decisions. Pers Individ Dif. 2005 ; 38: 45-59. (Pubitemid 39483242)
19. Keysar B., Barr DJ Self-anchoring in conversation: why language users don't do what they ''should.'' In Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D, eds. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press ; 2002. p 150-66.
20. Epley N., Keysar B., Van Boven L., Gilovich T. Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004 ; 87: 327-39. (Pubitemid 39288926)
21. Galinsky AD, Mussweiler T. First offers as anchors: the role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001 ; 81: 657-69.
22. Keysar B., Barr DJ, Balin JA, Brauner JS Taking perspective in communication: the role of mutual knowledge in comprehension. Psychol Sci. 2000 ; 11: 32-9.
23. Chapman K., Abraham C., Jenkins V., Fallowfield L. Lay understanding of terms used in cancer consultations. Psychooncology. 2003 ; 12: 557-66. (Pubitemid 37086731)
24. Chapple A., Campion P., May C. Clinical terminology: anxiety and confusion amongst families undergoing genetic counseling. Patient Educ Couns. 1997 ; 32: 81-91. (Pubitemid 27395982)
25. Gail M., Brinton LA, Byar DP, et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989 ; 81: 1879-86.
26. Claus E., Risch N., Thompson WD Autosomal dominant inheritance of early onset breast cancer, implications for risk prediction. Cancer. 1994 ; 73: 643-51. (Pubitemid 24046606)
27. Cull A., Anderson EDC, Campbell S., Mackay J., Smyth E., Steel M. The impact of genetic counseling about breast cancer risk on women's risk perceptions and levels of distress. Br J Cancer. 1999 ; 79: 501-8. (Pubitemid 29046226)
28. Gurmankin AD, Domchek S., Stopfer J., Fels C., Armstrong K. Patients' resistance to risk information in genetic counseling for BRCA1/2. Arch Intern Med. 2005 ; 165: 523-9.
29. Lobb EA, Butow PN, Meiser B., et al. Women's preferences and consultants' communication of risk in consultations about familial breast cancer: impact on patient outcomes. J Med Genet. 2003 ; 40: e56.
30. Avis NE, Smith KW, McKinlay JB Accuracy of perceptions of heart attack risk: what influences perceptions and can they be changes ? Am J Public Health. 1989 ; 79: 1608-12.
31. Lipkus I., Biradavolu M., Fenn K., Keller P., Rimer B. Informing women about their breast cancer risks: truth and consequences. Health Commun. 2001 ; 13: 205-26. (Pubitemid 33602875)
32. Epley N., Gilovich T. When effortful thinking influences judgmental anchoring: differential effects of forewarning and incentives on self-generated and externally provided anchors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2005 ; 18: 199-212. (Pubitemid 41054224)
33. Epley N., Gilovich T. The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic: why the adjustments are insufficient. Psychol Sci. 2006 ; 17: 311-7.
34. Jacowitz KE, Kahneman D. Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1995 ; 21: 1161-6. (Pubitemid 126046811)
35. Chapman GB, Johnson EJ Incorporating the irrelevant: Anchors in judgments of belief and value. In Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D, eds. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 2002. p 120-38.
36. Strack F., Mussweiler T. Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: mechanisms of selective accessibility. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1997 ; 73: 437-46. (Pubitemid 127118145)
37. Wilson TD, Houston C., Etling KM, Brekke N. A new look at anchoring effects: basic anchoring and its antecedents. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1996 ; 4: 387-402. (Pubitemid 126418376)
38. Mussweiler F., Strack T. Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: a selective accessibility model. J Exp Soc Psychol. 1999 ; 35: 136-164.
39. Brewer NT, Chapman GB, Schwartz JA, Bergus GR The influence of irrelevant anchors on the judgments and choices of doctors and patients. Med Decis Making. 2007 ; 27: 203-11.
40. Jepson C., Chaiken S. Chronic issue-specific fear inhibits systematic processing of persuasive communications. J Soc Behav Pers. 1990 ; 5: 61-84.
41. Lerman C., Lustbader E., Rimer B., Daly M., Miller S., Sands C., Balshem A. Effects of individualized breast cancer risk counseling: a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995 ; 87: 286-292.
42. Bish A., Sutton S., Jacobs C., Levene S., Ramirez A., Hodgson S. Changes in psychological distress after cancer genetic counseling: a comparison of affected and unaffected women. Br J Cancer. 2002 ; 86: 43-50. (Pubitemid 34146339)
43. Watson M., Lloyd S., Davidson J., et al. The impact of genetic counseling on risk perception and mental health in women with a family history of breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 1999 ; 79: 868-74. (Pubitemid 29082119)
44. Peters E., Vastfjail D., Slovic P., Mertz C., Mazzocco K., Dickert S. Numeracy and decision making. Psychol Sci. 2006 ; 17: 407-13.
45. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch H, Gilbert H. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:966-72.
46. Bowen DJ, Powers D, Greenlee H. Effects of breast cancer risk counseling for sexual minority. Health Care Women Int. 2006;27: 59-74.
47. Bohner G., Apostolidou W. Mood and persuasion: independent effects of affect before and after message processing. J Soc Psychol. 1994 ; 134: 707-9.
48. LaRusse S., Roberts JS, Marteau TM, et al. Genetic susceptibility testing versus family history-based risk assessment: impact on perceived risk of Alzheimer disease. Genet Med. 2005 ; 7: 48-53. (Pubitemid 40111131)