Effect of Assessment Method on the Discrepancy between Judgments of Health Disorders People have and do not have: A Web Study

Author:

Baron Jonathan1,Asch David A.2,Fagerlin Angela3,Jepson Christopher4,Loewenstein George5,Riis Jason6,Stineman Margaret G.7,Ubel Peter A.3

Affiliation:

1. Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania,

2. Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center

3. Veterans Administration Health Services Research and Development Center of Excellence, Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System and the Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Program for Improving Health Care Decisions, Ann Arbor, Michigan

4. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia

5. Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie-Mellon University

6. Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

7. Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia

Abstract

Three experiments on the World Wide Web asked subjects to rate the severity of common health disorders such as acne or arthritis. People who had a disorder (“Haves”) tended to rate it as less severe than people who did not have it (“Not-haves”). Two explanations of this Have versus Not-have discrepancy were rejected. By one account, people change their reference point when they rate a disorder that they have. More precise reference points would, on this account, reduce the discrepancy, but, if anything, the discrepancy was larger. By another account, people who do not have the disorder focus on attributes that are most affected by it, and the discrepancy should decrease when people make ratings on several attributes. Again, if anything, the discrepancy increased when ratings were on separate attributes (combined by a weighted average). The discrepancy varied in size and direction across disorders. Subjects also thought that they would be less affected than others.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Health Policy

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3