Suchergebnisse

Progress in surgical technology and in postoperative therapy has remarkably increased life expectation after heart transplantation. Nevertheless, patients still show a resistance to resume a normal life after transplantation, for example, to return to work. In this study we assume that after surgery patients become risk averse because they achieve a positive frame of reference. Because of this propensity toward risk aversion, they withhold from engaging in behavior that their physical condition would allow them in principle. Coherent with this assumption we found that compared to the medical team patients overestimate the degree of risk for routine activities. The study also showed that the representation of risk by the patients could be captured by a dreadfulness factor and a voluntariness factor. Patients' risk judgments were strongly and specifically predicted by the perceived degree of dreadfulness of the activity and, to a lesser extent, by the perceived knowledge of the consequences. Implications for patient-physician communication were explored.

AbstractPsychological theories implicitly assume that the modality in which information is conveyed—spoken or written—leaves judgment and choice unaltered. Modality is rarely considered in textbooks on judgment and decision making, and the selection of modality in research is often based on convenience. We challenge this theoretical assumption. Three experiments (N = 984) show that the modality in which novel technologies are described systematically influences their perceived risk and benefit. Participants either read or heard advantages and disadvantages of novel technologies and then assessed their risk and benefit. In Study 1, spoken descriptions prompted more positive evaluations toward the technologies in terms of overall risks and benefits than written descriptions. Studies 2 and 3 replicated this modality effect and demonstrated that affect partially explains it, as spoken descriptions induced more positive feelings toward the new technologies than written descriptions. Study 3 (preregistered) showed that the influence of modality is unique to novel technologies and does not extend to familiar ones. These findings contribute theoretically to the understanding of the relationship between language and thought, and carry implications for survey research and the use of voice assistant technology.

The aim of the present study is to show the representation of the category "money" that Italians have after the introduction of the Euro. In addition, it was assessed whether different expertise in handling money might have an effect. To assess the expertise we asked to answer three different groups (students, retailers, and bank clerks) to answer the questionnaire. It was expected that the mental representation of the concept of money should be different among the three groups since they have different ways of handling money depending on their specific activities. Results showed that different exemplars of money are actually perceived as differently representative of the concept money. Moreover, there was an effect of expertise, which led the three groups to have different mental representations of the money category.

Three experiments examined three factors that may impede the discovery of hidden profiles: commitment to initial decision, reiteration effect, and ownership bias. Experiment 1 examined whether groups in which members are not asked to make an initial decision before group discussion are more likely to uncover hidden profiles than groups in which members are asked to make an initial decision. Experiment 2 examined this commitment to an initial decision and also the repetition of information for individuals. Experiment 3 explored the reiteration effect in groups and examined whether information that is usually repeated more in groups is viewed as more truthful. Experiments 1 and 2 found no support for the commitment to initial decision hypothesis for uncovering hidden profiles. Experiment 2 found that repetition of `common'information significantly reduced individuals' ability to uncover hidden profiles. Experiment 3 found that information individuals owned (both common and unique) before discussion was rated as more valid than other information. Experiment 3 did not find that common information, which is generally repeated more, was rated as more valid than unique information. Limitations of the current studies and suggestions for future research are discussed.

This study compared how the judge advisor system (JAS) and unstructured groups discuss common and unique information. Three differences between the two were measured for their effect on communication of information. These were responsibility for decision, consensus seeking, and equity of participation. Participants were given information about two drugs and had to decide which of the two to market. Half met in unstructured 3-person groups and made the decision as a group. The rest met in JASs whereby the judge discussed the information with each advisor separately and then made the decision individually. Advisors mentioned but did not repeat a higher proportion of unique information than group members. Judges felt more responsible for, reported putting more effort toward, and had higher confidence in the decision than did group members. There was more inequity of participation and consensus seeking in JASs compared to groups. Differences are discussed in light of results found on information exchange.

Risk perceptions of a series of biotechnology applications were examined in a public (nonexpert) sample and an expert sample. Compared with the experts, the public perceived all biotechnology applications as more risky. Both groups perceived food‐related applications to be riskier than medical applications. Compared with the public, experts perceived both food and medical applications as less harmful and more useful. Experts also judged the risks posed from medical biotechnology applications as more familiar and acknowledged by people and science. Lay estimates of the risk of food applications were predicted by potential harm, potential benefits, science knowledge, and familiarity; experts' estimates were predicted only by harm and benefits. Lay estimates of the risk of medical applications were predicted by potential harm; experts' estimates were predicted by potential benefits, number and type of people exposed, and science knowledge. We discuss the implications of the results for risk communication about and management of different types of biotechnologies.