Literature DB >> 21689126

Affective and cognitive factors influencing sensitivity to probabilistic information.

Tadeusz Tyszka1, Przemyslaw Sawicki.   

Abstract

In study 1 different groups of female students were randomly assigned to one of four probabilistic information formats. Five different levels of probability of a genetic disease in an unborn child were presented to participants (within-subject factor). After the presentation of the probability level, participants were requested to indicate the acceptable level of pain they would tolerate to avoid the disease (in their unborn child), their subjective evaluation of the disease risk, and their subjective evaluation of being worried by this risk. The results of study 1 confirmed the hypothesis that an experience-based probability format decreases the subjective sense of worry about the disease, thus, presumably, weakening the tendency to overrate the probability of rare events. Study 2 showed that for the emotionally laden stimuli, the experience-based probability format resulted in higher sensitivity to probability variations than other formats of probabilistic information. These advantages of the experience-based probability format are interpreted in terms of two systems of information processing: the rational deliberative versus the affective experiential and the principle of stimulus-response compatibility.
© 2011 Society for Risk Analysis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21689126     DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01644.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Risk Anal        ISSN: 0272-4332            Impact factor:   4.000


  8 in total

1.  Impact of Information Presentation Format on Preference for Total Knee Replacement Surgery.

Authors:  Liana Fraenkel; W Benjamin Nowell; Christine E Stake; Shilpa Venkatachalam; Rachel Eyler; George Michel; Ellen Peters
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 4.794

2.  Shared Medical Decision Making in Lung Cancer Screening: Experienced versus Descriptive Risk Formats.

Authors:  Liana Fraenkel; Ellen Peters; Shea Tyra; David Oelberg
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2015-10-06       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  Can taking the perspective of an expert debias human decisions? The case of risky and delayed gains.

Authors:  Michał Białek; Przemysław Sawicki
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-09-04

4.  Introducing conjoint analysis method into delayed lotteries studies: its validity and time stability are higher than in adjusting.

Authors:  Michał Białek; Łukasz Markiewicz; Przemysław Sawicki
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-01-28

5.  Does exposure to simulated patient cases improve accuracy of clinicians' predictive value estimates of diagnostic test results? A within-subjects experiment at St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada.

Authors:  Bonnie Armstrong; Julia Spaniol; Nav Persaud
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-02-13       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Self-Distancing Reduces Probability-Weighting Biases.

Authors:  Qingzhou Sun; Huanren Zhang; Liyang Sai; Fengpei Hu
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2018-06-13

7.  Information Use Differences in Hot and Cold Risk Processing: When Does Information About Probability Count in the Columbia Card Task?

Authors:  Łukasz Markiewicz; Elżbieta Kubińska
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-11-18

8.  Why Can't We Accurately Predict Others' Decisions? Prediction Discrepancy in Risky Decision-Making.

Authors:  Qingzhou Sun; Huanren Zhang; Jing Zhang; Xiaoning Zhang
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2018-11-13
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.