Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Outcomes of clinical trials need to be communicated effectively to make decisions that save lives. We investigated whether framing can bias these decisions and if risk preferences shift depending on the number of patients. Hypothetical information about two medicines used in clinical trials having a sure or a risky outcome was presented in either a gain frame (people would be saved) or a loss frame (people would die). The number of patients who signed up for the clinical trials was manipulated in both frames in all the experiments. Using an unnamed disease, lay participants (experiment 1) and would-be medical professionals (experiment 2) were asked to choose which medicine they would have administered. For COVID-19, lay participants were asked which medicine should medical professionals (experiment 3), artificially intelligent software (experiment 4), and they themselves (experiment 5) favour to be administered. Broadly consistent with prospect theory, people were more risk-seeking in the loss frames than the gain frames. However, risk-aversion in gain frames was sensitive to the number of lives with risk-neutrality at low magnitudes and risk-aversion at high magnitudes. In the loss frame, participants were mostly risk-seeking. This pattern was consistent across laypersons and medical professionals, further extended to preferences for choices that medical professionals and artificial intelligence programmes should make in the context of COVID-19. These results underscore how medical decisions can be impacted by the number of lives at stake while revealing inconsistent risk preferences for clinical trials during a real pandemic.

Keywords

Valuation of lives risk-aversion framing effect Asian Disease COVID-19 medical decision making

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Almashat

Ayotte

Edelstein

Margrett

(2008). Framing effect debiasing in medical decision making. Patient Education and Counseling, 71(1), 102–107.

Asmundson

G. J.

Taylor

(2020). Coronaphobia: Fear and the 2019-nCoV outbreak. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 70, Article 102196.

Attema

A. E.

Brouwer

W. B.

l’Haridon

(2013). Prospect theory in the health domain: A quantitative assessment. Journal of Health Economics, 32(6), 1057–1065.

Bless

Betsch

Franzen

(1998). Framing the framing effect: The impact of context cues on solutions to the “Asian disease” problem. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28(2), 287–291.

Bloomfield

A. N.

(2006). Group size and the framing effect. Memory & Cognition, 34(4), 929–937.

Blumenthal-Barby

J. S.

Krieger

(2015). Cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making: A critical review using a systematic search strategy. Medical Decision Making, 35(4), 539–557.

Bornstein

B. H.

Emler

A. C.

(2001). Rationality in medical decision making: A review of the literature on doctors’ decision-making biases. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 7(2), 97–107.

Dhalla

Poole

(2013). Motivators to participation in clinical trials: The application of social and personal categorization. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 18(6), 664–675.

Diederich

Wyszynski

Ritov

(2018). Moderators of framing effects in variations of the Asian Disease problem: Time constraint, need and disease type. Judgment and Decision Making, 13(6), 529–546.

10.

Druckman

J. N.

(2001). Using credible advice to overcome framing effects. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 17(1), 62–82.

11.

Fagley

N. S.

Miller

P. M.

(1997). Framing effects and arenas of choice: Your money or your life? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71(3), 355–373.

12.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A.-G.

Buchner

(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.

13.

Jou

Shanteau

Harris

R. J.

(1996). An information processing view of framing effects: The role of causal schemas in decision making. Memory & Cognition, 24(1), 1–15.

14.

Kahneman

Tversky

(1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 363–391.

15.

Kim

Goldstein

Hasher

Zacks

R. T.

(2005). Framing effects in younger and older adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 60(4), P215–P218.

16.

Kühberger

(1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75(1), 23–55.

17.

Kühberger

Schulte-Mecklenbeck

Perner

(1999). The effects of framing, reflection, probability, and payoff on risk preference in choice tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78(3), 204–231.

18.

Lamanna

Byrne

(2018). Should artificial intelligence augment medical decision making? The case for an autonomy algorithm. AMA Journal of Ethics, 20(9), 902–910.

19.

LeBoeuf

R. A.

Shafir

(2003). Deep thoughts and shallow frames: On the susceptibility to framing effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16(2), 77–92.

20.

Lee

S. A.

Jobe

M. C.

Mathis

A. A.

(2021). Mental health characteristics associated with dysfunctional coronavirus anxiety. Psychological Medicine, 51, 1403–1404.

21.

Leonhardt

J. M.

Keller

L. R.

Pechmann

(2011). Avoiding the risk of responsibility by seeking uncertainty: Responsibility aversion and preference for indirect agency when choosing for others. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(4), 405–413.

22.

Levin

I. P.

Schneider

S. L.

Gaeth

G. J.

(1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149–188.

23.

Mahoney

K. T.

Buboltz

Levin

I. P.

Doverspike

Svyantek

D. J.

(2011). Individual differences in a within-subjects risky-choice framing study. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(3), 248–257.

24.

Mandel

D. R.

(2001). Gain-loss framing and choice: Separating outcome formulations from descriptor formulations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85(1), 56–76.

25.

Mandel

D. R.

(2014). Do framing effects reveal irrational choice? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(3), 1185–1198.

26.

Marewski

J. N.

Gigerenzer

(2012). Heuristic decision making in medicine. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 14(1), 77–89.

27.

Marteau

T. M.

(1989). Framing of information: Its influence upon decisions of doctors and patients. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28(1), 89–94.

28.

Mayhorn

C. B.

Fisk

A. D.

Whittle

J. D.

(2002). Decisions, decisions: Analysis of age, cohort, and time of testing on framing of risky decision options. Human Factors, 44(4), 515–521.

29.

McNeil

B. J.

Pauker

S. G.

Sox

H. C.

Jr. Tversky

(1982). On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. New England Journal of Medicine, 306(21), 1259–1262.

30.

Moxey

O’Connell

McGettigan

Henry

(2003). Describing treatment effects to patients how they are expressed makes a difference. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 18(11), 948–959.

31.

Mukherjee

Sahay

Pammi

V. C.

Srinivasan

(2017). Is loss aversion magnitude-dependent? Measuring prospective affective judgments regarding gains and losses. Judgment and Decision Making, 12(1), 81–89.

32.

Prelec

Loewenstein

(1991). Decision making over time and under uncertainty: A common approach. Management Science, 37(7), 770–786.

33.

Reyna

V. F.

Chick

C. F.

Corbin

J. C.

Hsia

A. N.

(2014). Developmental reversals in risky decision making: Intelligence agents show larger decision biases than college students. Psychological Science, 25(1), 76–84.

34.

Schimmenti

Billieux

Starcevic

(2020). The four horsemen of fear: An integrated model of understanding fear experiences during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 17(2), 41–45.

35.

Shortliffe

E. H.

Axline

S. G.

Buchanan

B. G.

Merigan

T. C.

Cohen

S. N.

(1973). An artificial intelligence program to advise physicians regarding antimicrobial therapy. Computers and Biomedical Research, 6(6), 544–560.

36.

Shortliffe

E. H.

Sepúlveda

M. J.

(2018). Clinical decision support in the era of artificial intelligence. JAMA, 320(21), 2199–2200.

37.

Simon

A. F.

Fagley

N. S.

Halleran

J. G.

(2004). Decision framing: Moderating effects of individual differences and cognitive processing. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17(2), 77–93.

38.

Slovic

Peters

Finucane

M. L.

MacGregor

D. G.

(2005). Affect, risk, and decision making. Health Psychology, 24(4S), S35–S40.

39.

Stone

E. R.

Choi

Y. S.

Bruine

Bruin

Mandel

D. R.

(2013). I can take the risk, but you should be safe: Self-other differences in situations involving physical safety. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(3), 250–267.

40.

Tunney

R. J.

Ziegler

F. V.

(2015). Toward a psychology of surrogate decision making. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(6), 880–885.

41.

Tversky

Kahneman

(1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.

42.

Wang

X. T.

(1996). Domain-specific rationality in human choices: Violations of utility axioms and social contexts. Cognition, 60(1), 31–63.

43.

Wang

X. T.

Johnston

V. S.

(1995). Perceived social context and risk preference: A re-examination of framing effects in a life–death decision problem. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 8(4), 279–293.

44.

Weber

B. J.

Chapman

G. B.

(2005). Playing for peanuts: Why is risk seeking more common for low-stakes gambles? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(1), 31–46.

45.

Yamada

Ćepulić

D. B.

Coll-Martín

Debove

Gautreau

Han

. . .Lieberoth

(2021). COVIDiSTRESS Global Survey dataset on psychological and behavioural consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak. Scientific Data, 8(1), 1–23.

46.

Yechiam

(2019). Acceptable losses: The debatable origins of loss aversion. Psychological Research, 83(7), 1327–1339.

47.

Zhen

(2016). All framing effects are not created equal: Low convergent validity between two classic measurements of framing. Scientific Reports, 6(1), Article 30071.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.12 MB

Lay,professional,and artificial intelligence perspectives on risky medical decisions and COVID-19: How does the number of lives matter in clinical trials framed as gains versus losses?

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material