Are move options always better? The attraction effect in physicians' decisions about medications

被引:36
作者
Schwartz, JA [1 ]
Chapman, GB [1 ]
机构
[1] Rutgers State Univ, Dept Psychol, Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA
关键词
attraction effect; decision making; physicians' decisions; consumer choice;
D O I
10.1177/0272989X9901900310
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Consumer choice research has shown that, contrary to normative theory, the introduction of an inferior alternative to an existing choice set can increase the likelihood that one of the original alternatives will be chosen. This phenomenon, the attraction effect, is relevant to physician decision making, particularly when the physician is in the role of a consumer who must make decisions about prescribing medications when a number of alternatives are available. To investigate the attraction effect in physician decision making, 40 internal medicine residents reviewed three patient cases (concerning depression, sinusitis, and vaginitis) and then chose the most appropriate medication for each patient. In some versions of the cases, two medication options were available. Other versions included a third medication (the decoy) that was inferior in every way to one of the original options (the target) but not to the other (the competitor). The results showed that addition of the "decoy" medication increased the likelihood of choosing the target medication. That is, the attraction effect does occur in physicians' decisions about medications. Physicians should be aware of this bias when evaluating or suggesting several similarly attractive medications or treatment options for the same medical condition.
引用
收藏
页码:315 / 323
页数:9
相关论文
共 9 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1997, PHYS DESK REF, P1723
[2]   ADDING ASYMMETRICALLY DOMINATED ALTERNATIVES - VIOLATIONS OF REGULARITY AND THE SIMILARITY HYPOTHESIS [J].
HUBER, J ;
PAYNE, JW ;
PUTO, C .
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, 1982, 9 (01) :90-98
[3]  
REDELMEIER DA, 1995, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V273, P302, DOI 10.1001/jama.1995.03520280048038
[4]   REASON-BASED CHOICE [J].
SHAFIR, E ;
SIMONSON, I ;
TVERSKY, A .
COGNITION, 1993, 49 (1-2) :11-36
[5]  
SHAFIR E, 1995, THINKING INVITATION
[6]   CHOICE BASED ON REASONS - THE CASE OF ATTRACTION AND COMPROMISE EFFECTS [J].
SIMONSON, I .
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, 1989, 16 (02) :158-174
[7]   CHOICE BETWEEN EQUALLY VALUED ALTERNATIVES [J].
SLOVIC, P .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-HUMAN PERCEPTION AND PERFORMANCE, 1975, 1 (03) :280-287
[8]   CHOICE UNDER CONFLICT - THE DYNAMICS OF DEFERRED DECISION [J].
TVERSKY, A ;
SHAFIR, E .
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 1992, 3 (06) :358-361
[9]   THE DISJUNCTION EFFECT IN CHOICE UNDER UNCERTAINTY [J].
TVERSKY, A ;
SHAFIR, E .
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 1992, 3 (05) :305-309