Risky feelings: Why a 6% risk of cancer does not always feel like 6%

Patient Education and Counseling

Volumn 81, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2010, Pages

  Zikmund Fisher, Brian J ^a,b,c   Fagerlin, Angela ^b,c,d   Ubel, Peter A ^a,b,c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c Center for Behavioral and Decision Sciences in Medicine   (United States)

^d VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Decision making; Patient education; Risk communication

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AFFECT; AGED; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BREAST CANCER; CANCER RECURRENCE; CANCER RESEARCH; CANCER RISK; CANCER SURVIVAL; COLON CANCER; CONTROLLED STUDY; EMOTIONALITY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT DECISION MAKING; PATIENT EDUCATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; RISK REDUCTION; SURVIVAL RATE;

AFFECT; COMMUNICATION; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; RISK; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK REDUCTION BEHAVIOR;

EID: 78649633032     PISSN: 07383991     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.07.041     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. National Cancer Institute funds four Centers of Excellence in Cancer Communications Research 2003, National Cancer Institute, Available from: http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/hcirb/ceccr/CECCR_Awards_Press_Announcement.pdf. [September 18, 2009].
2. Nicholson R.A., Kreuter M.W., Lapka C., Wellborn R., Clark E.M., Sanders-Thompson V., et al. Unintended effects of emphasizing disparities in cancer communication to African-Americans. Cancer Epidemiol Biomar Prev 2008, 17:2946-2953.
3. Zikmund-Fisher B.J., Ubel P.A., Smith D.M., Derry H.A., McClure J.B., Stark A., et al. Communicating side effect risks in a tamoxifen prophylaxis decision aid: the debiasing influence of pictographs. Patient Educ Couns 2008, 73:209-214.
4. Gray S.W., O'Grady C., Karp L., Smith D., Schwartz J.S., Hornik R.C., et al. Risk information exposure and direct-to-consumer genetic testing for BRCA mutations among women with a personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009, 18:1303-1311.
5. Stryker J.E., Fishman J., Emmons K.M., Viswanath K., Stryker J.E., Fishman J., et al. Cancer risk communication in mainstream and ethnic newspapers. Prev Chronic Dis 2009, 6. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2009/jan/08_0006.htm [serial on the Internet].
6. Hawley S.T., Zikmund-Fisher B.J., Ubel P.A., Jankovic A., Lucas T., Fagerlin A. The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices. Patient Educ Couns 2008, 73:448-455.
7. Zikmund-Fisher B.J., Fagerlin A., Roberts T.R., Derry H.A., Ubel P.A. Alternate methods of framing information about medication side effects: incremental risk versus total risk occurence. J Health Commun 2008, 13:107-124.
8. Zikmund-Fisher B.J., Fagerlin A., Ubel P.A. Mortality versus survival graphs: improving temporal consistency in perceptions of treatment effectiveness. Patient Educ Couns 2007, 66:100-107.
9. Zikmund-Fisher B.J., Fagerlin A., Ubel P.A. Improving understanding of adjuvant therapy options by using simpler risk graphics. Cancer 2008, 113:3382-3390.
10. Zikmund-Fisher B.J., Fagerlin A., Ubel P.A. What's time got to do with it? Inattention to duration in interpretation of survival graphs. Risk Anal 2005, 25:589-595.
11. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases 1982, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, A. Tversky (Eds.).
12. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 1974, 185:1124-1131.
13. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn Psychol 1973, 5:207-232.
14. Loewenstein G.F., Weber E.U., Hsee C.K., Welch N. Risk as feelings. Psycholog Bull 2001, 127:267-286.
15. Finucane M.L., Alhakami A., Slovic P., Johnson S.M. The affect of heuristic judgments of risks and benefits. J Behav Decis Making 2000, 13:1-17.
16. Damasio A.R. Descartes' error: emotion, reason, and the human brain 1994, G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York.
17. Rottenstreich Y., Hsee C.K. Money, kisses, and electric shocks: on the affective psychology of risk. Psychol Sci 2001, 12:185-190.
18. Slovic P., Peters E., Finucane M.L., MacGregor D.G. Affect, risk and decision making. Health Psychol 2005, 24:S35-S40.
19. LeDoux J.E. The emotional brain: the mysterious underpinnings of emotional life 1996, Simon & Schuster, New York.
20. Sloman S.A. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychol Bull 1996, 119:3-22.
21. Smith E.R., DeCoster J. Dual-process models in social and cognitive psychology: conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 2000, 4:108-131.
22. Kahneman D., Frederick S. Representativeness revisited: attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment 2002, 49-81. Cambridge University Press, New York. T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, D. Kahneman (Eds.).
23. Reyna V.F. How people make decisions that involve risk: a dual-processes approach. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2004, 13:60-66.
24. Lerman C., Lustbader E., Rimer B., Daly M., Miller S., Sands C., et al. Effects of individualized breast cancer risk counseling: a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995, 87:286-292.
25. Croyle R.T., Lerman C. Risk communication in genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999, 25:59-66.
26. Mouchawar J., Byers T., Cutter G., Dignan M., Michael S. A study of the relationship between family history of breast cancer and knowledge of breast cancer genetic testing prerequisites. Cancer Detect Prev 1999, 23:22-30.
27. Durfy S.J., Bowen D.J., McTiernan A., Sporleder J., Burke W. Attitudes and interest in genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility in diverse groups of women in western Washington. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999, 8:369-375.
28. Fagerlin A., Zikmund-Fisher B.J., Ubel P.A. How making a risk estimate can change the feel of that risk: shifting attitudes toward breast cancer risk in a general public survey. Patient Educ Couns 2005, 57:294-299.
29. Schwartz M.D., Rimer B.K., Daly M., Sands C., Lerman C. A randomized trial of breast cancer risk counseling: the impact on self-reported mammography use. Am J Public Health 1999, 89:924-926.
30. Fischhoff B. Hindsight is not equal to foresight: the effect of outcome knowledge on judgement under uncertainty. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1975, 1:288-299.
31. Lipkus I.M., Samsa G., Rimer B.K. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making 2001, 21:37-44.
32. Peters E., Hibbard J., Slovic P., Dieckmann N. Numeracy skill and the communication, comprehension, and use of risk-benefit information. Health Aff 2007, 26:741-748.
33. Peters E., Vastfjall D., Slovic P., Mertz C.K., Mazzocco K., Dickert S. Numeracy and decision making. Psychol Sci 2006, 17:407-413.
34. Zikmund-Fisher B.J., Smith D.M., Ubel P.A., Fagerlin A. Validation of the subjective numeracy scale (SNS): effects of low numeracy on comprehension of risk communications and utility elicitations. Med Decis Making 2007, 27:663-671.
35. Nelson W., Reyna V.F., Fagerlin A., Lipkus I.M., Peters E. Clinical implications of numeracy: theory and practice. Ann Behav Med 2008, 35:261-274.
36. Peters E., Lipkus I.M., Diefenbach M.A. The functions of affect in health communications and the construction of health preferences. J Commun 2006, 56:S140-S162.
37. Windschitl P.D., Martin R., Flugstad A.R. Context and the interpretation of likelihood information: the role of intergroup comparisons on perceived vulnerability. J Pers Soc Psychol 2002, 82:742-755.
38. Windschitl P.D. Judging the accuracy of a likelihood judgment: the case of smoking risk. J Behav Dec Mak 2002, 15:19-35.
39. Denes-Raj V., Epstein S., Cole J. The generality of the ratio-bias phenomenon. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 1995, 21:1083-1092.
40. Amsterlaw J., Zikmund-Fisher B.J., Fagerlin A., Ubel P.A. Can avoidance of complications lead to biased healthcare decisions?. Judgm Decis Mak 2006, 1:64-75.
41. Ubel P.A., Loewenstein G. The role of decision analysis in informed consent: choosing between intuition and systematicity. Soc Sci Med 1997, 44:647-656.
42. Strecher V.J., Rosenstock I.M. The health belief model. Health behavior and education: theory, research, and practice 1997, p496. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. 2nd ed. K. Glanz, F.M. Lewis, B.K. Rimer (Eds.).
43. Baron J. Thinking and deciding 1994, Cambridge University Press, New York. 2nd ed.
44. Hsee C.K. The evaluability hypothesis: an explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organ Behav Hum Dec is Process 1996, 67:247-257.
45. Hsee C.K. Less is better: when low-value options are valued more highly than high-value options. J Behav Decis Mak 1998, 11:107-121.
46. Hsee C.K., Blount S., Lowenstein G.F., Bazerman M.H. Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: a review and theoretical analysis. Psychol Bull 1999, 125:576-590.
47. Zikmund-Fisher B.J., Fagerlin A., Ubel P.A. " Is 28% good or bad?" Evaluability and preference reversals in health care decisions. Med Decis Making 2004, 24:142-148.
48. Fagerlin A., Zikmund-Fisher B.J., Ubel P.A. " If I'm better than average, then I'm OK?": comparative information influences beliefs about risk and benefits. Patient Educ Couns 2007, 69:140-144.
49. Klein W.M. Objective standards are not enough: affective, self-evaluative and behavioral responses to social comparison information. J Pers Soc Psychol 1997, 72:763-774.
50. McCaul K.D., Canevello A.B., Mathwig J.L., Klein W.M.P. Risk communication and worry about breast cancer. Psychol Health Med 2003, 8:379-389.
51. Fisher B., Costantino J.P., Wickerham D.L., Redmond C.K., Kavanah M., Cronin W.M., et al. Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998, 90:1371-1388.
52. Lipkus I.M., Biradavolu M., Fenn K., Keller P., Rimer B.K. Informing women about their breast cancer risks: truth and consequences. Health Commun 2001, 13:205-226.
53. Zikmund-Fisher B.J., Fagerlin A., Keeton K., Ubel P.A. Does labeling prenatal screening test results as negative or positive affect a woman's responses?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007, 197:e1-e6.
54. Peters E., Dieckmann N.F., Vastfjall D., Mertz C.K., Slovic P., Hibbard J.H. Bringing meaning to numbers: the impact of evaluative categories on decisions. J Exp Psychol Appl 2009, 15:213-227.