“Is 28% Good or Bad?” Evaluability and Preference Reversals in Health Care Decisions
- 1 March 2004
- journal article
- other
- Published by SAGE Publications in Medical Decision Making
- Vol. 24 (2) , 142-148
- https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x04263154
Abstract
Choices of health care providers can become inconsistent when people lack sufficient context to assess the value of available information. In a series of surveys, general population samples were randomized to read descriptions of either 2 possible health care providers or a single provider. Some information about providers was easy to consider (e.g., travel time), but some was difficult to interpret without additional context (e.g., success rates). Ratings of the described health care providers varied significantly by whether options were evaluated independently or concurrently. For example, one fertility clinic (33% success rate, 15 min away) was rated higher than a 2nd (40% success rate, 45 min away) when each clinic was considered separately (7.1 v. 6.2, P = 0.046), but preferences reversed in joint evaluation (5.9 v. 6.7, P = 0.051). The results suggest that clinicians and developers of patient information materials alike should consider information evaluability when deciding how to present health care options to patients.Keywords
This publication has 6 references indexed in Scilit:
- Preference Reversals of a Different Kind: The “More Is Less” PhenomenonAmerican Economic Review, 2002
- Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review and theoretical analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 1999
- Will Products Look More Attractive When Presented Separately Or Together?Journal of Consumer Research, 1998
- Less is better: when low-value options are valued more highly than high-value optionsJournal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1998
- The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of AlternativesOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1996
- Reversals of Preference in Allocation Decisions: Judging an Alternative Versus Choosing Among AlternativesAdministrative Science Quarterly, 1992