Biomedical subjects

Ketti Mazzocco

Publications and source records attributed to Ketti Mazzocco.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Numeracy and decision making.

A series of four studies explored how the ability to comprehend and transform probability numbers relates to performance on judgment and decision tasks. On the surface, the tasks in the four studies appear to be widely different; at a conceptual level, however, they all involve processing numbers and the potential to show an influence of affect. Findings were consistent with highly numerate individuals being more likely to retrieve and use appropriate numerical principles, thus making themselves less susceptible to framing effects, compared with less numerate individuals. In addition, the highly numerate tended to draw different (generally stronger or more precise) affective meaning from numbers and numerical comparisons, and their affective responses were more precise. Although generally helpful, this tendency may sometimes lead to worse decisions. The less numerate were influenced more by competing, irrelevant affective considerations. Analyses showed that the effect of numeracy was not due to general intelligence. Numerical ability appears to matter to judgments and decisions in important ways.

Adult↗

PubMed2003

Rethinking the focusing effect in decision-making.

According to Legrenzi et al. [Cognition 49 (1993) 37], in making a choice people consider only the alternatives explicitly represented in their mental model of the decision situation. Their idea has found empirical support in the "focusing effect": Individuals focus on the alternatives explicitly stated in the problem context, and do not take into account other possibilities. In their original study, Legrenzi and colleagues considered only one factor to account for the explicit representation of an alternative--i.e., its explicit verbal formulation in the decision problem. Recent theories of relevance and information gain can help articulate their original idea, suggesting that individuals explicitly represent relevant alternatives, whether or not they are explicitly formulated in the decision problem. In three experiments we first replicated Legrenzi et al.'s original experiment, and then showed that the explicit verbal mention of an alternative is neither sufficient nor necessary to focus on it. The results suggest that individuals are able to consider relevant alternatives, even when they are not made explicit in the verbal formulation of a decision problem.

Adult↗

PubMedDate not supplied

[The framing effect: medical implications].

Over the last 20 years, many studies explored how the way information is presented modifies choices. This sort of effect, referred to as "framing effects", typically consists of the inversion of choices when presenting structurally identical decision problems in different ways. It is a common assumption that physicians are unaffected (or less affected) by the surface description of a decision problem, because they are formally trained in medical decision making. However, several studies showed that framing effects occur even in the medical field. The complexity and variability of these effects are remarkable, making it necessary to distinguish among different framing effects, depending on whether the effect is obtained by modifying adjectives (attribute framing), goals of a behavior (goal framing), or the probability of an outcome (risky choice framing). A further reason for the high variability of the framing effects seems to be the domain of the decision problem, with different effects occurring in prevention decisions, disease-detection decisions, and treatment decisions. The present work reviews the studies on framing effects, in order to summarize them and clarify their possible role in medical decision making.

Decision Making↗