Do decision biases predict bad decisions? Omission bias, naturalness bias, and influenza vaccination
Do decision biases predict bad decisions? Omission bias, naturalness bias, and influenza vaccination
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/0272989x07312723
复制
发表时间：
2008-07-01
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Chapman, Gretchen B.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
DiBonaventura, Marco daCosta;Chapman, Gretchen B.
目的.许多使用假设性小插曲的研究已经证明了决策偏差或偏离效用理论。在问卷调查中有偏见的人在现实世界中做出的决定比偏见较少的人更糟糕吗？方法. 270名大学教职员工参与了一项问卷调查，他们报告了他们是否接受工作场所提供的免费流感疫苗。流感疫苗接受度是衡量现实世界决策的标准。参与者回答了3个假设情景。两种情景测量了遗漏偏倚，并描述了预防负面健康结果但本身可能导致负面健康结果的疫苗（情景1）和药物（情景2）。遗漏偏倚是指即使疫苗/药物降低了阴性结果的总风险，也倾向于不接种疫苗或不用药。第三种方案通过在两种化学性质相同的药物之间进行选择来测量自然性偏差，一种药物从天然草药中提取，另一种药物在实验室合成。对天然药物的偏好表明存在天然性偏倚。结果结果表明，相当一部分参与者表现出这些偏见，表现出这些偏见的参与者不太可能接受流感疫苗。结论.在一定程度上，拒绝免费流感疫苗是一个更糟糕的现实世界的决定，那些在假设场景中表现出自然性和遗漏偏见的人会做出更糟糕的现实世界的决定。
Purpose. Numerous studies using hypothetical vignettes have demonstrated decision biases or deviations from utility theory. Do people who commit biases in questionnaire studies make worse real-world decisions than do less biased people? Methods. Two hundred seventy university faculty and staff participated in a questionnaire study in which they reported whether they accepted a free influenza vaccine offered at their work place. Influenza vaccine acceptance was the measure of real-world decision making. Participants responded to 3 hypothetical scenarios. Two scenarios measured the omission bias and described a vaccine (scenario 1) and a medication (scenario 2) that prevented a negative health outcome but that itself could cause the negative health outcome. The omission bias is a preference for not vaccinating or medicating even when the vaccine/medication lowers the total risk of the negative outcome. A 3rd scenario measured the naturalness bias by presenting a choice between 2 chemically identical medications, one extracted from a natural herb and the other synthesized in a laboratory. Preference for the natural medication indicated the naturalness bias. Results. The results indicated that a substantial proportion of participants exhibited these biases and that participants who exhibited these biases were less likely to accept the flu vaccine. Conclusions. To the extent that declining a free flu vaccine is a worse real-world decision, people who demonstrate the naturalness and omission biases in hypothetical scenarios make worse real-world decisions.