Research Doctorate in Psychology: Cognitive, Emotional and Communicative Processes

Research Doctorate in Psychology: Cognitive, Emotional and Communicative Processes

The role of emotions in

omission vs. commission

dilemmas

May, 19th, 2008

TO ACT OR NOT TO ACT?

Ph.D, Raffaella Di Schiena

Advisor: Guglielmo Bellelli (University of Bari, IT)

Co-advisors: Antony Manstead (University of Cardiff, UK) Marcel Zeelenberg (University of Tilburg, NL)

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

A RATIONAL DECISION MAKER should decide in accordance with following anxioms:DominanceInvariance

OMISSION BIAS (OB)OMISSION BIAS (OB)(Ritov & Baron, 1990)(Ritov & Baron, 1990)

THE VACCINATION DILEMMA“Suppose you are parent of a three years old child. In the country you live in there is an epidemic flu that can be fatal for children at this age (…). However, a vaccine has been developed and tested, which is able to eliminate any chance of getting the flu.”Death risk due to the flu: 10/10,000Death risk due to the side effects of the vaccine: 5/10,000

THEORY OF RATIONAL CHOICE

(Von Neumann & Morgenstern, 1947)

However, when faced with an omission vs. commission dilemma, decision makers are biased towards omission, even when the omission is riskier


OB IN MORAL (LEGAL) JUDGMENT(Spranca et al., 1991)

OB IN POST-CHOICE EMOTIONS(Tversky & Kahneman, 1982)

OB IN CHOICE(Baron & Ritov, 1990)

Why is it important?

It violates rationality axioms (Kordes-de Vaal, 1998)

It was found in real vaccination choices and in physicians’clinical practice (Aberegg et al., 2005; Asch et al., 1994; Wroe et al., 2005)

http://www.spirithistory.com/regret.jpg


ARTICLESTUDY

TYPE OF OB

Baron & Ritov, 1990

Study 1OB in

choice

Study 2OB in

choice

Study 3OB in

choice

Study 4OB in

choice

Spranca et al., 1991

Study 1

OB in judgment

Study 2

OB in judgment

Study 3

OB in judgment

Study 4 OB in choice

Study 5

OB in judgment

Study 6

OB in judgment

Ritov & Baron , 1992

Study 1OB in

emotion


Study 3OB in

choice

Asch et al., 1994

Only one study OB in choice

Schweitzer, 1994


Baron & Ritov, 1994

Study 1OB in

emotion


Study 3OB in

emotion



Ritov & Baron, 1995

Study 1OB in

emotion

Study 2OB in

emotion



Meszaros et al., 1996


Kordes-de Vaal, 1996

Only one study

OB in judgment

Kordes-de Vaal, 1998




Kordes-de Vaal, 1998 Study 2 OB in choice

Ritov & Baron, 1999




Connolly & Reb, 2003

Study1 OB in choice

Study2 OB in choice

Study3 OB in choice

Baron & Ritov, 2004

Study1 OB in choice

Study2 OB in choice

Tanner & Medin, 2004


Aberegg et al., 2005


Zikmund et al, 2006


Omission bias: A literature review (continued)


EMOTIONS AND DECISION MAKING:The dance of affect and reason (Slovic et al., 2003)

Anticipated emotions(Zeelenberg, 1999)

Affective vs. Analytical evaluation processes(Epstein & Pacini, 1999)

Experienced emotions(Loewenstein, Weber, & Hsee, 2001; Luce, 1998)

Studies 1 & 2

Study 3

Study 4

STUDY 1 and 2: OB and anticipated regret

Individuals prefer the omission over the action because they expect to feel less regret in case of negative outcome

GENERAL PREDICTION

Manipulation Omissionbias

Anticipatedregret

Study 1: OB and anticipated regret

No Otcome Knowledge (n=69)“You will never get to know the outcome of your choice”

Partial Outcome Knowledge (n=72)“You will know the outcome of your choice”

Full Outcome Knowledge (N=70)“You will get to know the outcome of your choice and how things might have been, had you decided differently”

Mediator:Anticipated regret in “think aloud” verbal protocols

Omission preferenceOmission preference

Participants: 211 Undegraduates at University of BariBrain infection scenarioManipulation of anticipated regret salience by Outcome Knowledge Expectation

D.Vs.:1) Choice2) Maximum level of risk acepted following the action

STUDY 1: OB and anticipated regret

RESULTS on main DVs

34.23%27.8%

17.6%

0

20

40

60

80

100

No Knowl. Partial Knowl. Full Knowl.

Action Omission Max. Risk Accept. From Action

13.77%14.47%

17.23%

10

15

20

No Knowl. Partial Knowl. Full Knowl.

M=26,54

No n = 69

Partial n = 72

Full n = 70

Total N = 211

p

Anticipated regret 1 6 15 22 < .005

p. < .05 ns.

p. < .05ns.

Results on mediator

Mediation analysis was not possible

Discussion

• As regards effects on DVs:Results were not significant but in the expected direction: The hypothesis is still plausible

• As regards verbal protocols:Was this procedure inadequate? Does talking about anticipated regret require metacognitive

competence? Is Anticipated regret an argument difficult to justifie?

Just improve the procedure!

STUDY 1: OB and anticipated regret

Study 2: OB and anticipated regret

No causal link (N=53)Sometimes the vaccine fails. The vaccine simply lowers the risk.

Ambiguous causal link (N=51)If you vaccinate and your child dies, you do not know whether this was caused by being infected earlier on or whether it is a result from the vaccination.

Clear causal link (N=53)If you vaccinate and your child dies, you know he died from the vaccine’s side effects..

Mediator:2 items 7-point scales:• Anticipated regret from action• Anticipated regret from omission

Omission choiceOmission choice

Participants: 157 Undegraduates at Tilburg UniversityVaccination scenarioManipulation of the causal link between action and possible negative outcome

No C.L.

vs.

Ambiguous C.L.

vs.

Clear C.L.

AnticipatedRegret

from Omission

AnticipatedRegret

from Action

Probability of Omission choiceO.R.= 2.28 , p = .074

O.R.= 18.45**

Mediation Analysis (Baron & Kenny, 1986)

β = 0,51****

β = - 0.20*

O.R.= 1.70**

O.R. = 0.43****

Studies 1 and 2: Omission bias and anticipated regret

• Anticipated regret plays a role in OB

• Fear of regretting the action or fear of regretting the omission? In

which conditions? And why?

CONCLUSIONS

Future research

Study 3: OB and affective vs. analytical evaluation

THEORETICAL BACKGROUNDOB in a dual-process view

Experiential System Analytic System

1. Holistic 1. Analytic

2. Affective: pleasure-pain oriented 2. Logical: reason oriented

3. Associationistic connection 3. Logical connection

4. Behaviour mediated by “vibes” from past experiences

4. Behaviour mediated by conscious appraisal of events

5. Encodes reality in concrete images, metaphors, and narratives

5. Encodes reality in abstract symbols, words, and numbers

7. Self-evidently valid: “experiencing is believing”

7. Requires justifications via logic end evidence

Two different modes of processing(Epstein,1994; Epstein et al., 1996)

Two different styles of processing(Pacini & Epstein, 1999)


An affective-experiential evaluation process, rather than analytical, will bring about higher OB

HYPOTHESIS

PROCESS MEASURES: Content analysis on verbal protocols produced in Study 1- Affective Process Index and Analitical Process Index

DISPOSITIONAL MEASURES:

Rational Experiential Inventory: Pacini & Epstein &, 1999

PREDICTORS

RESULTS

Study 3: OB and affective vs. analytical processes

• RESULTS ON CHOICE

Disposition effect non significant:

χ2(2) = .99, ns

Analytical disposition: O.R. = 1.04, ns Affective disposition: O.R.= 1.02,ns

Process effect:

χ2(2) = 15.97, p < .005

Analytical Evaluation: O.R.= 0.18, ns Affective Evaluation: O.R.= 0.55, p < .05

• RESULTS ON MLRA:

Disposition effect non significant:

Adj. R2= -.01 F(2, 175) = 3.55, ns

Analytical disposition: β= -0.01, ns Affective disposition: β = -0.06, ns

Process effect:

Adj. R2= .06, F(1, 93)= 7.28, p < .01

Analytical Evaluation: β = 0.06, ns Affective Evaluation: β = 0.26, p < .01


DISCUSSION

• Choosing action or omission was not related to one’s own disposition

• An unexpected evidence for Action Bias

• The action choice as an affective choice

Is it a matter of personal relevanceor availability of previous experiences?

Is it a matter of attitude towards health care and physicians

among italian participants?

• General hypothesis:

Trust Action VS Omission

Actionbias

Omissionbias

+High

Anxiety

High Anxiety

High Trust

High Anxiety

Low Trust

Low Anxiety

High Trust

Low Anxiety

Low Trust

Experimental Design

Study 4 OB and AB in health decision making: The role of anxiety and trust

Theorethical Background:Decision making as emotion focused copying (Luce, 1998)

-When choice is highly emotional individuals choose what is more reassuring

1. Main effect of trust

2. Two way interaction effect of trust and anxiety on choice

3. Three way interaction effect of trust, anxiety and choice on MLRA

Study 4OB and AB in health decision making: The role of anxiety and trust

• Participants: 231 undergraduates at the University of Bari • Materials: 3 health related scenarios with omission as risky as action• Dependent measures: Choice MLRA in association with the choice made • Anxiety manipulation check: PANAS • Trust manipulation check: Four items after the manipulation• Covariate: Trust in Physician Scale (TPS: Anderson & Dedrick, 1990)

METHOD

HYPOTHESIS

Study 4OB and AB in health decision making: The role of anxiety and trust

Vaccination scenario:

Trust affected preference in the expected direction (TPS)β= 0.15, p < .05 Anxiety determined preference for actionO.R. = 0.78, p= .07; β= 0.15, p < .05 Three-way interaction (Trust by Anxiety by Choice) on MLRAF(4, 154)= 2.99, p < .05,ηp

2 = .04

RESULTS by scenario

High trust condition

5.25

4.00

4.754.50

3

4

5

6

High Anxiety Low Anxiety

Vaccinate

Not to vaccinate

Low trust condition

4.174.29

4.5

5.45

3

4

5

6


Action: 54.1%Omission: 45.9%

Slow growing cancer scenario:

Trust affected preference in the expected directionβ= 0.13, p < .05 Anxiety determined preference for actionO.R.= 0.71, p < .05; β= 0.20, p < .01 Three-way interaction (Trust by Anxiety by Choice)F(4, 161)= 2.69, p < .05, ηp

2 =.05

High trust condition

20.2

18.2

17.9118.13

14

16

18

20

22


To havechemotherapy

Not to havechemotherapy

Low trust condition

18,23

17,67

18.17

22.05

14

16

18

20

22

24


Brain infection scenario:

A significant effect of Trust (β= -2.57, p < .05)



General conclusion

• Evidence for OB was replicated throughout studies OB was significantly enhanced by the anticipation of regret

• It was found an unexpected reliable evidence for AB AB was significantly affected by the emotionality of the process and by the anxiety of the choice situation

• Domain specific believes are strong predictors

Further research is needed on the perspective of the decision making as emotion focused copying

Was the emotional perspective useful?It was fruitful!

ARTICLE SCENARIO RISK PROSPECTRitov & Baron (1990)

Study 1 Vaccination Omission riskier than actionStudy 2 Vaccination Omission riskier than actionStudy 3 Vaccination Omission riskier than actionStudy 4 Vaccination Omission riskier than actionSpranca et al. (1991)Study 4 Brain surgery Omission riskier than actionRitov & Baron (1992)Study 2 Various No risk information providedStudy 3 Various No risk information providedAsch et al. (1994)Only one study Vaccination Omission riskier than actionSchweitzer (1994)Only one study Various No risk information providedBaron & Ritov (1994)Study 2 Investments in pension founds Omission riskier than action**Study 4 Vaccination Omission riskier than actionStudy 5 A new medication against cholesterol Omission riskier than actionRitov & Baron (1995)

Study 3Fetal testing involving risk of

miscarriageOmission riskier than action

Study 4 Vaccination Omission riskier than actionMeszaros et al. (1994)Only one study Vaccination Omission riskier than actionKordes de Vaal (1998)Study 1 Brain infection Risk from omission unspecified

Study 2 A dike about to burstRisk from action and risk from omission are

diverseStudy 3 A lawsuit to be persevered or rejected**

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND: OB in choice

ARTICLE SCENARIO RISK PROSPECT

Kordes de Vaal (1998)

Study 2 Asian disease Equal risk from action and omission

Ritov & Baron (1999)

Study 1 Various*

Study 2 Various*

Study 3 Various*

Connolly and Reb (2003)

Study1 Vaccination Equal risk from action and omission

Study2 Vaccination*

Study3 Vaccination*

Baron and Ritov (2004)

Study1 Vaccination Risk from omission unspecified

Study2 Vaccination Omission riskier than action

Tanner and Medin (2004)

Only one studyFour scenarios about environmental

issuesEqual risk for action and omission

Aberegg et al. (2005)

Only one studyTreatment choice about pulmonary

embolismNo risk information provided

Zikmund et al. (2006)

Only one study Vaccination and slow growing cancer Omission riskier than the action

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND: OB in choice (continued)

Research Doctorate in Psychology: Cognitive, Emotional and Communicative Processes

Documents

Transcript of Research Doctorate in Psychology: Cognitive, Emotional and Communicative Processes