知情同意中的风险认知和风险态度

A. Schwartz, M. Hasnain
{"title":"知情同意中的风险认知和风险态度","authors":"A. Schwartz, M. Hasnain","doi":"10.1017/S1357530902000558","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The standard account of the ‘reflection effect’ (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979) is that attitude toward risk changes across gain or loss framings of outcomes. Weber and Bottom (1989) proposed an alternative account in which decision makers have stable risk attitudes, but changing risk perceptions. Undergraduates were randomly assigned to read one of three hypothetical informed consent documents from a trial of a cholesterol-lowering drug. Documents used gain, loss or both framings to describe expected benefits. Respondents rated riskiness of participation and non-participation in the trial and made a choice about whether they would participate in the trial.The reflection effect was replicated. In addition, as predicted by the Weber and Bottom account, respondents in the gain condition were more likely to rate participation as riskier than non-participation compared to respondents in the loss condition, and in each condition more than 70 per cent of respondents chose to avoid the option they judged as riskier. Implications for informed consent are discussed.","PeriodicalId":212131,"journal":{"name":"Risk Decision and Policy","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Risk perception and risk attitude in informed consent\",\"authors\":\"A. Schwartz, M. Hasnain\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1357530902000558\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The standard account of the ‘reflection effect’ (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979) is that attitude toward risk changes across gain or loss framings of outcomes. Weber and Bottom (1989) proposed an alternative account in which decision makers have stable risk attitudes, but changing risk perceptions. Undergraduates were randomly assigned to read one of three hypothetical informed consent documents from a trial of a cholesterol-lowering drug. Documents used gain, loss or both framings to describe expected benefits. Respondents rated riskiness of participation and non-participation in the trial and made a choice about whether they would participate in the trial.The reflection effect was replicated. In addition, as predicted by the Weber and Bottom account, respondents in the gain condition were more likely to rate participation as riskier than non-participation compared to respondents in the loss condition, and in each condition more than 70 per cent of respondents chose to avoid the option they judged as riskier. Implications for informed consent are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":212131,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Risk Decision and Policy\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2002-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Risk Decision and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357530902000558\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Risk Decision and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357530902000558","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

“反射效应”的标准解释(Kahneman和Tversky, 1979)是对风险的态度在结果的收益或损失框架中发生变化。Weber和Bottom(1989)提出了另一种解释,即决策者有稳定的风险态度,但风险观念在变化。在一项降胆固醇药物试验中,本科生被随机分配阅读三份假设的知情同意书中的一份。文件使用收益、损失或两者同时使用的框架来描述预期收益。受访者对参与和不参与试验的风险进行评级,并选择是否参加试验。反射效应被复制了。此外,正如Weber和Bottom账户所预测的那样,与损失条件下的受访者相比,收益条件下的受访者更有可能认为参与风险更大,而不是不参与,在每种情况下,超过70%的受访者选择避免他们认为风险更大的选择。讨论了知情同意的含义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Risk perception and risk attitude in informed consent
The standard account of the ‘reflection effect’ (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979) is that attitude toward risk changes across gain or loss framings of outcomes. Weber and Bottom (1989) proposed an alternative account in which decision makers have stable risk attitudes, but changing risk perceptions. Undergraduates were randomly assigned to read one of three hypothetical informed consent documents from a trial of a cholesterol-lowering drug. Documents used gain, loss or both framings to describe expected benefits. Respondents rated riskiness of participation and non-participation in the trial and made a choice about whether they would participate in the trial.The reflection effect was replicated. In addition, as predicted by the Weber and Bottom account, respondents in the gain condition were more likely to rate participation as riskier than non-participation compared to respondents in the loss condition, and in each condition more than 70 per cent of respondents chose to avoid the option they judged as riskier. Implications for informed consent are discussed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Multi-attribute decision making and public perceptions of risk in relation to large scale environmental projects Is safety culture in differing organizations the same thing? a comparison of safety culture measures in three organizations Risk events and learning from error: when are assessments of the risk of unemployment revised? On not wanting to know and not wanting to inform others: choices regarding predictive genetic testing Making decisions for incident management in nuclear power plants using probabilistic safety assessment
×
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