Patient Education and Counseling
Volume 81 , Pages S87-S93 , December 2010

Risky feelings: Why a 6% risk of cancer does not always feel like 6%

  • Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher

      Affiliations

    • Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    • Division of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    • Center for Behavioral and Decision Sciences in Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author at: Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2029, USA. Tel.: +1 734 936 9179; fax: +1 734 763 7379.
    • ,
  • Angela Fagerlin

      Affiliations

    • Division of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    • Center for Behavioral and Decision Sciences in Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    • VA Health Services Research & Development Center for Practice Management and Outcomes Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    • ,
  • Peter A. Ubel

      Affiliations

    • Division of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    • Center for Behavioral and Decision Sciences in Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    • VA Health Services Research & Development Center for Practice Management and Outcomes Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    • Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Received 18 January 2010 ,Revised 22 July 2010 ,Accepted 28 July 2010.

References 

  1. National Cancer Institute funds four Centers of Excellence in Cancer Communications Research. National Cancer Institute; 2003;Available from: http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/hcirb/ceccr/CECCR_Awards_Press_Announcement.pdf. [September 18, 2009]
  2. Nicholson RA, Kreuter MW, Lapka C, Wellborn R, Clark EM, Sanders-Thompson V, et al. Unintended effects of emphasizing disparities in cancer communication to African-Americans. Cancer Epidemiol Biomar Prev. 2008;17:2946–2953
  3. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Smith DM, Derry HA, McClure JB, Stark A, et al. Communicating side effect risks in a tamoxifen prophylaxis decision aid: the debiasing influence of pictographs. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73:209–214
  4. Gray SW, O’Grady C, Karp L, Smith D, Schwartz JS, Hornik RC, et al. Risk information exposure and direct-to-consumer genetic testing for BRCA mutations among women with a personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18:1303–1311
  5. Stryker JE, Fishman J, Emmons KM, Viswanath K, Stryker JE, Fishman J, et al. Cancer risk communication in mainstream and ethnic newspapers. Prev Chronic Dis. 2009;6:Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2009/jan/08_0006.htm [serial on the Internet]
  6. Hawley ST, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Jankovic A, Lucas T, Fagerlin A. The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73:448–455
  7. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Roberts TR, Derry HA, Ubel PA. Alternate methods of framing information about medication side effects: incremental risk versus total risk occurence. J Health Commun. 2008;13:107–124
  8. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA. Mortality versus survival graphs: improving temporal consistency in perceptions of treatment effectiveness. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;66:100–107
  9. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA. Improving understanding of adjuvant therapy options by using simpler risk graphics. Cancer. 2008;113:3382–3390
  10. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA. What's time got to do with it? Inattention to duration in interpretation of survival graphs. Risk Anal. 2005;25:589–595
  11. In:  Kahneman D,  Slovic P,  Tversky A editor. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1982;
  12. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science. 1974;185:1124–1131
  13. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn Psychol. 1973;5:207–232
  14. Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N. Risk as feelings. Psycholog Bull. 2001;127:267–286
  15. Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM. The affect of heuristic judgments of risks and benefits. J Behav Decis Making. 2000;13:1–17
  16. Damasio AR. Descartes’ error: emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons; 1994;
  17. Rottenstreich Y, Hsee CK. Money, kisses, and electric shocks: on the affective psychology of risk. Psychol Sci. 2001;12:185–190
  18. Slovic P, Peters E, Finucane ML, MacGregor DG. Affect, risk and decision making. Health Psychol. 2005;24:S35–S40
  19. LeDoux JE. The emotional brain: the mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. New York: Simon & Schuster; 1996;
  20. Sloman SA. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychol Bull. 1996;119:3–22
  21. Smith ER, DeCoster J. Dual-process models in social and cognitive psychology: conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2000;4:108–131
  22. Kahneman D, Frederick S. Representativeness revisited: attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In:  Gilovich T,  Griffin D,  Kahneman D editor. Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2002;p. 49–81
  23. Reyna VF. How people make decisions that involve risk: a dual-processes approach. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2004;13:60–66
  24. Lerman C, Lustbader E, Rimer B, Daly M, Miller S, Sands C, et al. Effects of individualized breast cancer risk counseling: a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;87:286–292
  25. Croyle RT, Lerman C. Risk communication in genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999;25:59–66
  26. Mouchawar J, Byers T, Cutter G, Dignan M, Michael S. A study of the relationship between family history of breast cancer and knowledge of breast cancer genetic testing prerequisites. Cancer Detect Prev. 1999;23:22–30
  27. Durfy SJ, Bowen DJ, McTiernan A, Sporleder J, Burke W. Attitudes and interest in genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility in diverse groups of women in western Washington. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1999;8:369–375
  28. Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. How making a risk estimate can change the feel of that risk: shifting attitudes toward breast cancer risk in a general public survey. Patient Educ Couns. 2005;57:294–299
  29. Schwartz MD, Rimer BK, Daly M, Sands C, Lerman C. A randomized trial of breast cancer risk counseling: the impact on self-reported mammography use. Am J Public Health. 1999;89:924–926
  30. Fischhoff B. Hindsight is not equal to foresight: the effect of outcome knowledge on judgement under uncertainty. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1975;1:288–299
  31. Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer BK. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:37–44
  32. Peters E, Hibbard J, Slovic P, Dieckmann N. Numeracy skill and the communication, comprehension, and use of risk-benefit information. Health Aff. 2007;26:741–748
  33. Peters E, Vastfjall D, Slovic P, Mertz CK, Mazzocco K, Dickert S. Numeracy and decision making. Psychol Sci. 2006;17:407–413
  34. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Smith DM, Ubel PA, Fagerlin A. Validation of the subjective numeracy scale (SNS): effects of low numeracy on comprehension of risk communications and utility elicitations. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:663–671
  35. Nelson W, Reyna VF, Fagerlin A, Lipkus IM, Peters E. Clinical implications of numeracy: theory and practice. Ann Behav Med. 2008;35:261–274
  36. Peters E, Lipkus IM, Diefenbach MA. The functions of affect in health communications and the construction of health preferences. J Commun. 2006;56:S140–S162
  37. Windschitl PD, Martin R, Flugstad AR. Context and the interpretation of likelihood information: the role of intergroup comparisons on perceived vulnerability. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002;82:742–755
  38. Windschitl PD. Judging the accuracy of a likelihood judgment: the case of smoking risk. J Behav Dec Mak. 2002;15:19–35
  39. Denes-Raj V, Epstein S, Cole J. The generality of the ratio-bias phenomenon. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1995;21:1083–1092
  40. Amsterlaw J, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA. Can avoidance of complications lead to biased healthcare decisions?. Judgm Decis Mak. 2006;1:64–75
  41. Ubel PA, Loewenstein G. The role of decision analysis in informed consent: choosing between intuition and systematicity. Soc Sci Med. 1997;44:647–656
  42. Strecher VJ, Rosenstock IM. The health belief model. In:  Glanz K,  Lewis FM,  Rimer BK editor. Health behavior and education: theory, research, and practice. 2nd ed.. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1997;p. p496
  43. Baron J. Thinking and deciding. 2nd ed.. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1994;
  44. Hsee CK. The evaluability hypothesis: an explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organ Behav Hum Dec is Process. 1996;67:247–257
  45. Hsee CK. Less is better: when low-value options are valued more highly than high-value options. J Behav Decis Mak. 1998;11:107–121
  46. Hsee CK, Blount S, Lowenstein GF, Bazerman MH. Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: a review and theoretical analysis. Psychol Bull. 1999;125:576–590
  47. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA. “Is 28% good or bad?” Evaluability and preference reversals in health care decisions. Med Decis Making. 2004;24:142–148
  48. Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. “If I’m better than average, then I’m OK?”: comparative information influences beliefs about risk and benefits. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;69:140–144
  49. Klein WM. Objective standards are not enough: affective, self-evaluative and behavioral responses to social comparison information. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1997;72:763–774
  50. McCaul KD, Canevello AB, Mathwig JL, Klein WMP. Risk communication and worry about breast cancer. Psychol Health Med. 2003;8:379–389
  51. Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, Redmond CK, Kavanah M, Cronin WM, et al. Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:1371–1388
  52. Lipkus IM, Biradavolu M, Fenn K, Keller P, Rimer BK. Informing women about their breast cancer risks: truth and consequences. Health Commun. 2001;13:205–226
  53. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Keeton K, Ubel PA. Does labeling prenatal screening test results as negative or positive affect a woman's responses?. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197:e1–e6
  54. Peters E, Dieckmann NF, Vastfjall D, Mertz CK, Slovic P, Hibbard JH. Bringing meaning to numbers: the impact of evaluative categories on decisions. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2009;15:213–227

PII: S0738-3991(10)00442-8

doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.07.041

Patient Education and Counseling
Volume 81 , Pages S87-S93 , December 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution