It must be awful for them: Perspective and task context affects ratings for health conditions.
Journal Title: Judgment and Decision Making - Year 2006, Vol 1, Issue 2
Abstract
When survey respondents rate the quality of life (QoL) associated with a health condition, they must not only evaluate the health condition itself, but must also interpret the meaning of the rating scale in order to assign a specific value. The way that respondents approach this task depends on subjective interpretations, resulting in inconsistent results across populations and tasks. In particular, patients and non-patients often give very different ratings to health conditions, a discrepancy that raises questions about the objectivity of either groups' evaluations. In this study, we found that the perspective of the raters (i.e., their own current health relative to the health conditions they rated) influences the way they distinguish between different health states that vary in severity. Consistent with prospect theory, a mild and a severe lung disease scenario were rated quite differently by lung disease patients whose own health falls between the two scenarios, whereas healthy non-patients, whose own health was better than both scenarios, rated the two scenarios as much more similar. In addition, we found that the context of the rating task influences the way participants distinguish between mild and severe scenarios. Both patients and non-patients gave less distinct ratings to the two scenarios when each were presented in isolation than when they were presented alongside other scenarios that provided contextual information about the possible range of severity for lung disease. These results raise continuing concerns about the reliability and validity of subjective QoL ratings, as these ratings are highly sensitive to differences between respondent groups and the particulars of the rating task.
Authors and Affiliations
Heather P. Lacey, Angela Fagerlin, George Loewenstein, Dylan M. Smith, Jason Riis, and Peter A. Ube
Keywords
Related Articles
- EP ID EP677560
- DOI -
- Views 159
- Downloads 0
The effectiveness of imperfect weighting in advice taking
We investigate decision-making in the Judge-Advisor-System where one person, the “judge”, wants to estimate the number of a certain entity and is given advice by another person. The question is how to combine the judge’s...
Emotional tone and argumentation in risk communication
In this paper I explore how the evolution of emotional expression and co-operative planning in humans may inform the way they communicate about risks, and what implication this may have for models of rationality in risk...
Reply: Birnbaum’s (2012) statistical tests of independence have unknown Type-I error rates and do not replicate within participant
Birnbaum (2011, 2012) questioned the iid (independent and identically distributed) sampling assumptions used by state-of-the-art statistical tests in Regenwetter, Dana and Davis-Stober’s (2010, 2011) analysis of the “lin...
The less-is-more effect: Predictions and tests
In inductive inference, a strong prediction is the less-is-more effect: Less information can lead to more accuracy. For the task of inferring which one of two objects has a higher value on a numerical criterion, there ex...
Analytic atheism: A cross-culturally weak and fickle phenomenon?
Religious belief is a topic of longstanding interest to psychological science, but the psychology of religious disbelief is a relative newcomer. One prominently discussed model is analytic atheism, wherein cognitive refl...