14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Effects of Emotion on Medical Decisions Involving Tradeoffs

      1 , 2 , 3 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 1 , 2 , 3
      Medical Decision Making
      SAGE Publications

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <p class="first" id="P1">Risk perceptions for a disease can motivate use of medications that reduce disease risk. However, these medications are often accompanied by elevated risks for other adverse health effects, and perceived risk of these side effects may also influence decisions. Emotions experienced at the time of a decision influence risk judgments and decision making, and may be important to examine in these tradeoff contexts. This study examined the effect of experimentally-induced fear and anger on risk perceptions and willingness to use a hypothetical medical treatment that attenuates risk of one condition, but increases the risk for another. </p><p id="P2">Participants ( <i>N</i>=1948) completed an induction of fear, anger, or neutral emotion, and then read about a hypothetical medication that reduced risk for one health condition, but increased risk for another, and indicated their willingness to use it. Deliberative, experiential, and affective risk perceptions about both health conditions were measured, conditional on taking and not taking the medication. </p><p id="P3">Fear condition participants were more willing to take the medication than those in the neutral condition, β=0.14, <i>p</i>=.009, 95% CI (0.036, 0.25). Fear also increased deliberative, experiential, and affective risk when conditioned on <i>not using</i> the medication, <i>ps</i>&lt;.05. In contrast, anger did not influence willingness to use the medication, <i>p</i>=.22, and increased deliberative and affective risk of side effects when conditioned on <i>using</i> the medication, <i>p</i>&lt;.05. </p><p id="P4">As one of the first studies to examine how emotion influences tradeoff decision making, these findings extend our understanding of how fear and anger influence such decisions. </p>

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations.

          Mediation is said to occur when a causal effect of some variable X on an outcome Y is explained by some intervening variable M. The authors recommend that with small to moderate samples, bootstrap methods (B. Efron & R. Tibshirani, 1993) be used to assess mediation. Bootstrap tests are powerful because they detect that the sampling distribution of the mediated effect is skewed away from 0. They argue that R. M. Baron and D. A. Kenny's (1986) recommendation of first testing the X --> Y association for statistical significance should not be a requirement when there is a priori belief that the effect size is small or suppression is a possibility. Empirical examples and computer setups for bootstrap analyses are provided.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality.

            Modern theories in cognitive psychology and neuroscience indicate that there are two fundamental ways in which human beings comprehend risk. The "analytic system" uses algorithms and normative rules, such as probability calculus, formal logic, and risk assessment. It is relatively slow, effortful, and requires conscious control. The "experiential system" is intuitive, fast, mostly automatic, and not very accessible to conscious awareness. The experiential system enabled human beings to survive during their long period of evolution and remains today the most natural and most common way to respond to risk. It relies on images and associations, linked by experience to emotion and affect (a feeling that something is good or bad). This system represents risk as a feeling that tells us whether it is safe to walk down this dark street or drink this strange-smelling water. Proponents of formal risk analysis tend to view affective responses to risk as irrational. Current wisdom disputes this view. The rational and the experiential systems operate in parallel and each seems to depend on the other for guidance. Studies have demonstrated that analytic reasoning cannot be effective unless it is guided by emotion and affect. Rational decision making requires proper integration of both modes of thought. Both systems have their advantages, biases, and limitations. Now that we are beginning to understand the complex interplay between emotion and reason that is essential to rational behavior, the challenge before us is to think creatively about what this means for managing risk. On the one hand, how do we apply reason to temper the strong emotions engendered by some risk events? On the other hand, how do we infuse needed "doses of feeling" into circumstances where lack of experience may otherwise leave us too "coldly rational"? This article addresses these important questions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion.

              There has long been interest in describing emotional experience in terms of underlying dimensions, but traditionally only two dimensions, pleasantness and arousal, have been reliably found. The reasons for these findings are reviewed, and integrating this review with two recent theories of emotions (Roseman, 1984; Scherer, 1982), we propose eight cognitive appraisal dimensions to differentiate emotional experience. In an investigation of this model, subjects recalled past experiences associated with each of 15 emotions, and rated them along the proposed dimensions. Six orthogonal dimensions, pleasantness, anticipated effort, certainty, attentional activity, self-other responsibility/control, and situational control, were recovered, and the emotions varied systematically along each of these dimensions, indicating a strong relation between the appraisal of one's circumstances and one's emotional state. The patterns of appraisal for the different emotions, and the role of each of the dimensions in differentiating emotional experience are discussed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Medical Decision Making
                Med Decis Making
                SAGE Publications
                0272-989X
                1552-681X
                November 07 2018
                November 2018
                October 20 2018
                November 2018
                : 38
                : 8
                : 1027-1039
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Basic Biobehavioral and Psychological Sciences Branch, Behavioral Research Program, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD (EME, RAF)
                [2 ]Office of the Associate Director, Behavioral Research Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD (WMPK)
                [3 ]Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA (EO)
                Article
                10.1177/0272989X18806493
                6262828
                30343624
                fae27596-67de-430b-b366-a34065a48e95
                © 2018

                http://journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article