Susan J Blalock1, Valerie F Reyna2. 1. Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 2. Human Neuroscience Institute, Cornell University.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Fuzzy-trace theory is a dual-process model of memory, reasoning, judgment, and decision making that contrasts with traditional expectancy-value approaches. We review the literature applying fuzzy-trace theory to health with 3 aims: evaluating whether the theory's basic distinctions have been validated empirically in the domain of health; determining whether these distinctions are useful in assessing, explaining, and predicting health-related psychological processes; and determining whether the theory can be used to improve health judgments, decisions, or behaviors, especially compared to other approaches. METHOD: We conducted a literature review using PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science to identify empirical peer-reviewed papers that applied fuzzy-trace theory, or central constructs of the theory, to investigate health judgments, decisions, or behaviors. RESULTS: Seventy nine studies (updated total is 94 studies; see Supplemental materials) were identified, over half published since 2012, spanning a wide variety of conditions and populations. Study findings supported the prediction that verbatim and gist representations are distinct constructs that can be retrieved independently using different cues. Although gist-based reasoning was usually associated with improved judgment and decision making, 4 sources of bias that can impair gist reasoning were identified. Finally, promising findings were reported from intervention studies that used fuzzy-trace theory to improve decision making and decrease unhealthy risk taking. CONCLUSIONS: Despite large gaps in the literature, most studies supported all 3 aims. By focusing on basic psychological processes that underlie judgment and decision making, fuzzy-trace theory provides insights into how individuals make decisions involving health risks and suggests innovative intervention approaches to improve health outcomes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).
OBJECTIVE: Fuzzy-trace theory is a dual-process model of memory, reasoning, judgment, and decision making that contrasts with traditional expectancy-value approaches. We review the literature applying fuzzy-trace theory to health with 3 aims: evaluating whether the theory's basic distinctions have been validated empirically in the domain of health; determining whether these distinctions are useful in assessing, explaining, and predicting health-related psychological processes; and determining whether the theory can be used to improve health judgments, decisions, or behaviors, especially compared to other approaches. METHOD: We conducted a literature review using PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science to identify empirical peer-reviewed papers that applied fuzzy-trace theory, or central constructs of the theory, to investigate health judgments, decisions, or behaviors. RESULTS: Seventy nine studies (updated total is 94 studies; see Supplemental materials) were identified, over half published since 2012, spanning a wide variety of conditions and populations. Study findings supported the prediction that verbatim and gist representations are distinct constructs that can be retrieved independently using different cues. Although gist-based reasoning was usually associated with improved judgment and decision making, 4 sources of bias that can impair gist reasoning were identified. Finally, promising findings were reported from intervention studies that used fuzzy-trace theory to improve decision making and decrease unhealthy risk taking. CONCLUSIONS: Despite large gaps in the literature, most studies supported all 3 aims. By focusing on basic psychological processes that underlie judgment and decision making, fuzzy-trace theory provides insights into how individuals make decisions involving health risks and suggests innovative intervention approaches to improve health outcomes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: Geoffrey Norman; Jonathan Sherbino; Kelly Dore; Tim Wood; Meredith Young; Wolfgang Gaissmaier; Sharyn Kreuger; Sandra Monteiro Journal: Acad Med Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Sarah T Hawley; Brian Zikmund-Fisher; Peter Ubel; Aleksandra Jancovic; Todd Lucas; Angela Fagerlin Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2008-08-27
Authors: David A Broniatowski; Eili Y Klein; Larissa May; Elena M Martinez; Chelsea Ware; Valerie F Reyna Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Karen R Sepucha; Aisha T Langford; Jeffrey K Belkora; Yuchiao Chang; Beverly Moy; Ann H Partridge; Clara N Lee Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2019-07-29 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Alejandra Hurtado-de-Mendoza; Valerie F Reyna; Christopher R Wolfe; Sara Gómez-Trillos; Arnethea L Sutton; Ashleigh Brennan; Vanessa B Sheppard Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2022-07-05
Authors: Kathryn S Tomsho; Erin Polka; Stacey Chacker; David Queeley; Marty Alvarez; Madeleine K Scammell; Karen M Emmons; Rima E Rudd; Gary Adamkiewicz Journal: Environ Health Date: 2022-07-12 Impact factor: 7.123
Authors: Peter H Schwartz; Kieran C O'Doherty; Colene Bentley; Karen K Schmidt; Michael M Burgess Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2021-04-05 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Paul L Aronson; Mary C Politi; Paula Schaeffer; Eduardo Fleischer; Eugene D Shapiro; Linda M Niccolai; Elizabeth R Alpern; Steven L Bernstein; Liana Fraenkel Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 3.451