Healthy Choices: Regulatory Design and Processing Modes of Health Decisions

Orly Lobel, On Amir
{"title":"Healthy Choices: Regulatory Design and Processing Modes of Health Decisions","authors":"Orly Lobel, On Amir","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1876734","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article demonstrates experimentally that individuals making decisions about their health management are affected by the decision making environment and that law and policy can serve important roles in improving the decision environment. With the support of a generous grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, we conducted two series of experiments. First a lab experiment with approximately 700 respondents and next a web-based experiment with over 3000 respondents, including 300 medical doctors. In each of the experiments, in addition to manipulating the decision making environment and choice sets, we manipulated the state of the decision maker. In the first series of experiments we used the psychological mechanism of cognitive depletion and in the second series we tested the effects of cognitive overload. Most broadly, unlike past measures of risk aversion, our studies demonstrate that preferences for risk are not fixed in an individual but rather are highly sensitive to the role, context, and state of the decision maker in patterned ways. The project provides new evidence that cognitive processes affect decision making and judgment of risk, often leading to medically suboptimal choices. The lab studies suggest that often people process risk sub-optimally, e.g. favoring potentially harmful omissions over less harmful acts and being influenced by the order of warnings or choices, rather than their substantive value.","PeriodicalId":410798,"journal":{"name":"Medical-Legal Studies eJournal","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical-Legal Studies eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1876734","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article demonstrates experimentally that individuals making decisions about their health management are affected by the decision making environment and that law and policy can serve important roles in improving the decision environment. With the support of a generous grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, we conducted two series of experiments. First a lab experiment with approximately 700 respondents and next a web-based experiment with over 3000 respondents, including 300 medical doctors. In each of the experiments, in addition to manipulating the decision making environment and choice sets, we manipulated the state of the decision maker. In the first series of experiments we used the psychological mechanism of cognitive depletion and in the second series we tested the effects of cognitive overload. Most broadly, unlike past measures of risk aversion, our studies demonstrate that preferences for risk are not fixed in an individual but rather are highly sensitive to the role, context, and state of the decision maker in patterned ways. The project provides new evidence that cognitive processes affect decision making and judgment of risk, often leading to medically suboptimal choices. The lab studies suggest that often people process risk sub-optimally, e.g. favoring potentially harmful omissions over less harmful acts and being influenced by the order of warnings or choices, rather than their substantive value.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
健康选择:健康决策的管理设计和处理模式
本文通过实验证明,个人健康管理决策受到决策环境的影响,法律和政策在改善决策环境方面发挥着重要作用。在罗伯特·伍德·约翰逊基金会的慷慨资助下,我们进行了两个系列的实验。首先是有大约700名答复者参加的实验室实验,然后是有3000多名答复者参加的网络实验,其中包括300名医生。在每个实验中,除了操纵决策环境和选择集外,我们还操纵了决策者的状态。在第一个系列的实验中,我们使用了认知耗竭的心理机制,在第二个系列中,我们测试了认知超载的影响。最广泛地说,与过去的风险厌恶措施不同,我们的研究表明,对风险的偏好并不是固定在个人身上的,而是对决策者的角色、背景和状态高度敏感。该项目提供了新的证据,证明认知过程影响决策和风险判断,往往导致医疗上的次优选择。实验室研究表明,人们往往以次优方式处理风险,例如,比起危害较小的行为,更倾向于潜在有害的遗漏,受到警告或选择顺序的影响,而不是它们的实质价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Who Gets Medication-assisted Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder, and Does It Reduce Overdose Risk? Evidence from the Rhode Island All-payer Claims Database The Architecture Behind the Malpractice Concept Guidelines Tax Evasion and Illicit Cigarettes in California: Part I – Survey Evidence on Current Behavior Regulatory Exclusivity Revision: Working to Achieve Greater Innovation in Approved New Molecular Entities Leviathan in the Commons: Biomedical Data and the State
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1