Theory—understanding mental processes that drive decisions—is important to help patients and providers make decisions that reflect medical advances and personal values. Building on a 2008 review, we summarize current tenets of fuzzy-trace theory (FTT) in light of new evidence that provides insight regarding mental representations of options and how such representations connect to values and evoke emotions. We discuss implications for communicating risks, preventing risky behaviors, discouraging misinformation, and choosing appropriate treatments. Findings suggest that simple, fuzzy but meaningful gist representations of information often determine decisions. Within minutes of conversing with their doctor, reading a health-related web post, or processing other health information, patients rely on gist memories of that information rather than verbatim details. This fuzzy-processing preference explains puzzles and paradoxes in how patients (and sometimes providers) think about probabilities (e.g., “50-50” chance), outcomes of treatment (e.g., with antibiotics), experiences of pain, end-of-life decisions, memories for medication instructions, symptoms of concussion, and transmission of viruses (e.g., in AIDS and COVID-19). As examples, participation in clinical trials or seeking treatments with low probabilities of success (e.g., with antibiotics or at the end of life) may indicate a defensibly different categorical gist perspective on risk as opposed to simply misunderstanding probabilities or failing to make prescribed tradeoffs. Thus, FTT explains why people avoid precise tradeoffs despite computing them. Facilitating gist representations of information offers an alternative approach that goes beyond providing uninterpreted “neutral” facts versus persuading or shifting the balance between fast versus slow thinking (or emotion vs. cognition). In contrast to either taking mental shortcuts or deliberating about details, gist processing facilitates application of advanced knowledge and deeply held values to choices.
Highlights
Fuzzy-trace theory (FTT) supports practical approaches to improving health and medicine.
FTT differs in important respects from other theories of decision making, which has implications for how to help patients, providers, and health communicators.
Gist mental representations emphasize categorical distinctions, reflect understanding in context, and help cue values relevant to health and patient care.
Understanding the science behind theory is crucial for evidence-based medicine.
ReynaVF. A theory of medical decision making and health: fuzzy trace theory. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(6):850–65. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08327066
2.
EvansJSStanovichKE. Dual-process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2013;8(3):223–41. DOI: 10.1177/1745691612460685
3.
KahnemanD. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 2011.
4.
WeberEUJohnsonEJ. Mindful judgment and decision-making. Annu Rev Psychol. 2009;60:53–85. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163633
5.
BroniatowskiDAKleinEYReynaVF. Germs are germs, and why not take a risk? Patients’ expectations for prescribing antibiotics in an inner-city emergency department. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(1):60–7. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X14553472
6.
KleinEYMartinezEMMayLSaheedMReynaVBroniatowskiDA. Categorical risk perception drives variability in antibiotic prescribing in the emergency department: a mixed methods observational study. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32(10):1083–9. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-017-4099-6
7.
ReynaVFMillsBA. Theoretically motivated interventions for reducing sexual risk taking in adolescence: a randomized controlled experiment applying fuzzy-trace theory. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2014;143(4):1627–48. DOI: 10.1037/a0036717
BonnerCTrevenaLJGaissmaierW, et a. Current best practice for presenting probabilities in patient decision aids: fundamental principles. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(7):821–33. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X21996328
10.
MatlockDDSpatzES. Design and testing of tools for shared decision making. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014;7(3):487–92. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.113.000289
11.
AdamMBReynaVF. Coherence and correspondence criteria for rationality: experts’ estimation of risks of sexually transmitted infections. J Behav Decis Makin. 2005;18(3):169–86.
12.
PolonioliA. The uses and abuses of the coherence - correspondence distinction. Front Psychol. 2015;6:507.
13.
FagerlinAPignoneMAbhyankarP, et al. Clarifying values: an updated review. BMC Med Inform Decis Making. 2013;13(suppl 2):S8.
14.
SchwartzPHO’DohertyKCBentleyCSchmidtKKBurgessMM. Layperson Views about the design and evaluation of decision aids: a public deliberation. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(5):527–39. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X21998980
15.
WittemanHONdjaboueRVaissonG, et al. Clarifying values: an updated and expanded systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(7):801–20. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211037946
16.
ReynaVF. A new intuitionism: meaning, memory, and development in fuzzy-trace theory. Judgm Decis Mak. 2012;7(3):332–59.
17.
ReynaVFBrainerdCJ. Dual processes in decision-making and developmental neuroscience: a fuzzy-trace model. Dev Rev. 2011;31(2–3):180–206. DOI: 10.1016/j.dr.2011.07.004
18.
Zikmund-FisherBJ. The right tool is what they need, not what we have: a taxonomy of appropriate levels of precision in patient risk communication. Med Care Res Rev. 2013;70(1 suppl):37S–49S. DOI: 10.1177/1077558712458541
19.
BlalockSJReynaVF. Using fuzzy-trace theory to understand and improve health judgments, decisions, and behaviors: a literature review. Health Psychol. 2016;35(8):781–92. DOI: 10.1037/hea0000384
20.
ReynaV. When irrational biases are smart: a fuzzy-trace theory of complex decision-making. J Intell. 2018;6(2):29. DOI: 10.3390/jintelligence6020029
21.
ReynaVFLloydFJ. Physician decision-making and cardiac risk: effects of knowledge, risk perception, risk tolerance, and fuzzy processing. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2006;12(3):179–95. DOI: 10.1037/1076-898X.12.3.179PMID: 16953744.
22.
ReynaVFBroniatowskiDAEdelsonSM. Viruses, vaccines, and COVID-19: explaining and improving risky decision-making. J Appl Res Mem Cogn. 2021;10(4):491–509. DOI: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2021.08.004
23.
JacobsJEKlaczynskiPA, editors. The Development of Judgment and Decision-Making in Children and Adolescents. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum; 2005. DOI: 10.4324/9781410613660
24.
MorsanyiKChiesiFPrimiCSzűcsD. The illusion of replacement in research into the development of thinking biases: the case of the conjunction fallacy. J Cogn Psychol. 2017;29:240–57. DOI: 10.1080/20445911.2016.1256294
25.
WeldonRBCorbinJCReynaVF. Gist processing in judgment and decision-making: developmental reversals predicted by fuzzy-trace theory. In: MarkovitsH, ed. The Developmental Psychology of Reasoning and Decision-Making. New York: Psychology Press; 2013. p 36–62.
26.
BroniatowskiDAHilyardKMDredzeM. Effective vaccine communication during the Disneyland measles outbreak. Vaccine. 2016;34(28):3225–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.04.044
27.
ReynaVF. A scientific theory of gist communication and misinformation resistance, with implications for health, education, and policy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021;118(15):e1912441117. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1912441117
28.
PetersEDiefenbachMAHessTMVästfjällD. Age differences in dual information-processing modes: implications for cancer decision making. Cancer. 2008;113(12 suppl):3556–67. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.23944
29.
GaravitoDMNReynaVFChiuA, et al. True and false memories for risk information about hydroxychloroquine (and methotrexate) among young adults and patients: a fuzzy-trace theory approach. Paper presented at: The 40th Annual Convention of the Society for Medical Decision Making; 2020 October; Virtual Meeting.
30.
KerenGSchulY. Two is not always better than one: a critical evaluation of two-system theories. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2009;4(6):533–50. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01164.x
31.
FraenkelLPetersECharpentierP, et al. Decision tool to improve the quality of care in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 2012;64(7):977–85. DOI: 10.1002/acr.21657
32.
ReynaVFBrainerdCJChenZBookbinderSH. Explaining risky choices with judgments: framing, the zero effect, and the contextual relativity of gist. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2021;47(7):1037–53. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0001016
KentS. Words of estimative probability. Stud Intell. 1964;8(4):49–65.
35.
de BruinWBFischhoffBMillsteinSGHalpern-FelsherBL. Verbal and numerical expressions of probability: “It’s a fifty-fifty chance.”Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2000;81(1):115–31. DOI: 10.1006/obhd.1999.2868
36.
BudescuDPorHHBroomellSBSmithsonM. The interpretation of IPCC probabilistic statements around the world.Nat Clim Change. 2014;4:508–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2194
37.
ReynaVFChickCFCorbinJCHsiaAN. Developmental reversals in risky decision-making: intelligence agents show larger decision biases than college students. Psychol Sci. 2014;25(1):76–84. DOI: 10.1177/0956797613497022
38.
FischhoffBBroomellSB. Judgment and decision making. Annu Rev Psychol. 2020;71:331–55. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050747
39.
ReynaVF. Of viruses, vaccines, and variability: qualitative meaning matters. Trends Cogn Sci. 2020;24(9):672–5. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2020.05.015
40.
HanPKJ. Uncertainty in Medicine. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2021.
41.
McKennaPEGlassARajendranGCorleyM. Strange words: autistic traits and the processing of non-literal language. J Autism Dev Disord. 2015;45(11):3606–12. DOI: 10.1007/s10803-015-2508-4
42.
ReynaVFBrainerdCJ. A fuzzy-trace theory of reasoning and remembering: paradoxes, patterns, and parallelism. In: Essays in Honor of William K Estes. Vol 1: From Learning Theory to Connectionist Theory; Vol 2: From Learning Processes to Cognitive Processes. Hillsdale (NJ): US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1992. p 235–59.
43.
JosephRM. Neuropsychological frameworks for understanding autism. Int Rev Psychiatry. 1999;11(4):309–24. DOI: 10.1080/09540269974195
44.
PolitiMCYenRWElwynG, et al. Women who are young, non-White, and with lower socioeconomic status report higher financial toxicity up to 1 year after breast cancer surgery: a mixed-effects regression analysis. Oncologist. 2021;26(1):e142–52. DOI: 10.1002/onco.13544
45.
BrownSLSalmonP. Reconciling the theory and reality of shared decision-making: a “matching” approach to practitioner leadership. Health Expect. 2019;22(3):275–83. DOI: 10.1111/hex.12853
46.
PetersE. Innumeracy in the Wild: Misunderstanding and Misusing Numbers. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2020.
47.
ReynaVF. Intuition, reasoning, and development: a fuzzy-trace theory approach. In: BarrouilletPGauffroyC, eds. The Development of Thinking and Reasoning. Hove (UK): Psychology Press; 2013. p 193–220.
48.
KühbergerATannerC. Risky choice framing: task versions and a comparison of prospect theory and fuzzy-trace theory. J Behav Decis Making. 2010;23(3):314–29. DOI: 10.1002/bdm.656
49.
TverskyA. Elimination by aspects: a theory of choice. Psychol Rev. 1972;79:281–99.
50.
RedelmeierDAKatzJKahnemanD. Memories of colonoscopy: a randomized trial. Pain. 2003;104(1–2):187–94. DOI: 10.1016/s0304-3959(03)00003-4
51.
ReynaVFNelsonWLHanPKPignoneMP. Decision-making and cancer. Am Psychol. 2015;70(2):105–18. DOI: 10.1037/a0036834
52.
WolfeCRReynaVFSmithRJ. On judgments of approximately equal. J Behav Decis Making. 2018;31(1):151–63.
53.
BroniatowskiDAReynaVF. A formal model of fuzzy-trace theory: variations on framing effects and the Allais paradox. Decision. 2018;5(4):205–52. DOI: 10.1037/dec0000083
ReynaVFBrust-RenckPG. How representations of number and numeracy predict decision paradoxes: a fuzzy-trace theory approach. J Behav Decis Making. 2020;33(5):606–28.
56.
TrevenaLJBonnerCOkanY, et al. Current challenges when using numbers in patient decision aids: advanced concepts. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(7):834–47. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X21996342
57.
SchwartzPH. Questioning the quantitative imperative: decision aids, prevention, and the ethics of disclosure. Hastings Cent Rep. 2011;41(2):30–9.
58.
FraenkelLWeiZRamseyC, et al. OPEX: development of a novel overall patient experience measure to facilitate interpretation of comparison effectiveness studies. PLoS One. 2021;16(1):e0245598.
59.
ReynaVFEstradaSMDeMarinisJAMyersRMStaniszJMMillsBA. Neurobiological and memory models of risky decision-making in adolescents versus young adults [published correction appears in J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2014;40(5):1431]. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2011;37(5):1125–42. DOI: 10.1037/a0023943.
60.
ReynaVF. Risk perception and communication in vaccination decisions: a fuzzy-trace theory approach. Vaccine. 2012;30(25):3790–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.070
61.
PennycookG. A perspective on the theoretical foundation of dual-process models. In: De NeysW, ed. Dual-Process 2.0. New York: Psychology Press; 2017.
62.
LoewensteinGFWeberEUHseeCKWelchN. Risk as feelings. Psychol Bull. 2001;127(2):267–86. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267
63.
WilhelmsEAFraenkelLReynaVF. Effects of probabilities, adverse outcomes, and status quo on perceived riskiness of medications: testing explanatory hypotheses concerning gist, worry, and numeracy. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2018;32(6):714–26. DOI: 10.1002/acp.3448
64.
DerryHMMaciejewskiPKEpsteinAS, et al. Associations between anxiety, poor prognosis, and accurate understanding of scan results among advanced cancer patients. J Palliat Med. 2019;22(8):961–5. DOI: 10.1089/jpm.2018.0624
65.
HanPKWilliamsAEHaskinsA, et al. Individual differences in aversion to ambiguity regarding medical tests and treatments: association with cancer screening cognitions. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014;23(12):2916–23. DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0872
66.
HendersonGEChurchillLRDavisAM, et al. Clinical trials and medical care: defining the therapeutic misconception. PLoS Med. 2007;4(11):e324. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040324
67.
EpsteinASPrigersonHGO’ReillyEMMaciejewskiPK. Discussions of life expectancy and changes in illness understanding in patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(20):2398–403. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.6696
68.
ReynaVFHamiltonAJ. The importance of memory in informed consent for surgical risk. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(2):152–5. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0102100209
69.
KroshusEGarnettBHawrilenkoMBaughCMCalzoJP. Concussion under-reporting and pressure from coaches, teammates, fans, and parents. Soc Sci Med. 2015;134:66–75. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.04.011
70.
GaravitoDMNReynaVFDeTelloJE. A concussion by any other name: differences in willingness to risk brain injury by label and level of participation in high-school and college sports. Appl Cognit Psychol. 2020;33:646–54. DOI: 10.1002/acp.3481
71.
EdelsonSMReynaVF. Decision-making in adolescence and early adulthood. In: CrockettLCarloGSchulenbergJ, eds. APA Handbook of Adolescent and Young Adult Development. Washington (DC): American Psychological Association; 2022.
72.
GaravitoDMNReynaVFDeTelloJELandowBRTarpinianLM. Intentions to report concussion symptoms in nonprofessional athletes: a fuzzy-trace theory approach. J Appl Cogn Psychol. 2021;35:26–38. DOI: https://doi:10.1002/acp.3734
73.
AjayiPTGaravitoDMNReynaVF. Socioeconomic status and concussion reporting: the distinct and mediating roles of gist processing, knowledge, and attitudes. J Behav Decis Making. 2021;34(5):639–56. DOI: 10.1002/bdm.2235
74.
HayesBBReynaVFHernandezAFanJ. Alcohol use is mentally represented as a series of categorical decisions about one more drink. Poster session presented at: The Convention of the Association for Psychological Science; 2021 May; Virtual Meeting.
75.
ReynaVFHelmRKWeldonRBShahPDTurpinAGGovindgariS. Brain activation covaries with reported criminal behaviors when making risky choices: a fuzzy-trace theory approach. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2018;147(7):1094–109. DOI: 10.1037/xge0000434
76.
CaseyBJ. Healthy development as a human right: lessons from developmental science. Neuron. 2019;102(4):724–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2019.03.035
77.
SteinbergLIcenogleGShulmanEP, et al. Around the world, adolescence is a time of heightened sensation seeking and immature self-regulation. Dev Sci. 2018;21(2):10.1111/desc.12532. DOI: 10.1111/desc.12532
78.
HelmRKReynaVF. Logical but incompetent plea decisions: a new approach to plea bargaining grounded in cognitive theory. Psychol Pub Pol Law. 2017;23:367–80. DOI: 10.1037/law0000125
79.
EdelsonSMReynaVF. How fuzzy-trace theory predicts development of risky decision-making, with novel extensions to culture and reward sensitivity. Dev Rev. 2021;62:100986. DOI: 10.1016/j.dr.2021.100986
80.
Voepel-LewisTBoydCJMcCabeSE, et al. Deliberative prescription opioid misuse among adolescents and emerging adults: opportunities for targeted interventions. J Adolesc Health. 2018;63(5):594–600. DOI: 10.1016/j.adohealth.2018.07.007
81.
WolfeCRReynaVFWidmerCL, et al. Efficacy of a web-based intelligent tutoring system for communicating a genetic risk of breast cancer: a fuzzy-trace theory approach. Med Decis Making. 2014;35:46–59. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X14535983
82.
WolfeCRDandignacMSullivanRMoleskiTReynaVF. Automatic evaluation of cancer treatment texts for gist inferences and comprehension. Med Decis Making. 2020;39(8):939–49. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19874316
