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 147
- Downloads 0
Choosing with confidence: Self-efficacy and preferences for choice
Previous research on the role of choice set size in decision making has focused on decision outcomes and satisfaction. In contrast, little is known about interindividual differences in preferences for larger versus small...
How well can adolescents really judge risk? Simple, self reported risk factors out-predict teens’ self estimates of personal risk
Recent investigations of adolescents’ beliefs about risk have led to surprisingly optimistic conclusions: Teens’ self estimates of their likelihood of experiencing various life events not only correlate sensibly with rel...
Cultural differences in risk: The group facilitation effect
We compared South Koreans with Australians in order to characterize cultural differences in attitudes and choices regarding risk, at both the individual and group levels. Our results showed that Australians, when assesse...
Measuring Social Value Orientation
Narrow self-interest is often used as a simplifying assumption when studying people making decisions in social contexts. Nonetheless, people exhibit a wide range of different motivations when choosing unilaterally among...
How different types of participant payments alter task performance
Researchers typically use incentives (such as money or course credit) in order to obtain participants who engage in the specific behaviors of interest to the researcher. There is, however, little understanding or agreeme...