Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Moreover, positive and negative framing of information also have differential
effects on interpretation and subsequent behavior (e.g., McNeil et al.
1982
). Although
results may or may not be attributed to ensuing positive affect, positively framed side
effect information (99 % safe) vs. negatively framed effects (1 % chance of adverse
health consequences), were found to result in greater consent to a treatment when the
outcome was associated with a relief, such as loss of pain (Gurm and Litaker
2000
).
Finally, Chandran and Menon (
2004
) showed that when health-related information
is presented in a day (vs. a year) format (e.g., “every day [vs. every year] a signifi cant
number of people fall prey to Mono”), risks appear more proximal and concrete,
resulting in increased self-risk perceptions, and enhancing effectiveness of risk
communication.
Absolute vs
.
relative
. Many studies have confi rmed that information presented in
relative terms and absolute terms elicits different responses (e.g., Halpern et al.
1989
; Stone et al.
1994
; Berry
2006
; Malenka et al.
1993
); with regard to risk
reduction—a type of product benefi t—for example, the relative format has greater
effect on judgments, produces higher ratings of satisfaction and perceived effective-
ness, and leads to the uptake of particular behaviors, to the extent that baseline
information (e.g., it is predicted that 10 % of the population will be affected by the
disease) is not provided (Natter and Berry
2005
).
Malenka et al. (
1993
) found that when patients had the choice between two
equally effi cacious medications to treat a hypothetical illness (with an option to
indicate indifference), 56.8 % opted for the medication whose benefi ts were stated
in relative terms, whereas only 14.7 % chose the alternative whose benefi ts were
presented in absolute terms irrespective of age, gender, education level, and experi-
ence with the medicinal treatment. Thus, it may be that consumers will opt for a new
medication that is professed to relieve pain, for example, 50 % faster than the fastest
pain reliever on the market, over one that is professed to relieve pain 5 min earlier
the fastest pain reliever—assuming that the alternative brand relieves pain in 10 min.
Verbal vs
.
numeric
. In addition to actual benefi ts, commonly stated information in
pharmaceutical commercials, for example, is the number of people who have felt
desired effects—quantifi cation of success stories—such as 8 out of 10 people saw
results in 1 month. Would consumers prefer a medication that has worked for 8 out of
10 people or for 10 out of 15? The latter, of course, has a much lower success rate (0.80
vs. 0.66), but would consumers' behavioral intentions refl ect this information?
Denes-Raj and Epstein's (
1994
) study suggests that the answer may be “no.”
They fi nd that when drawing a red jelly bean, individuals often chose to pick from
a bowl containing a greater absolute number but a smaller proportion (e.g., 7 in 100)
than from a bowl with fewer but greater probability of winning (e.g., 1 in 10).
Participants reported having felt that they had a better chance of winning when there
were more red beans. Researchers suggested that participants had imagined
the numerator while disregarding the denominator, which elicited positive affect
(e.g., the affect heuristic) that ultimately drove the decision (Slovic et al.
2005
): the
numerator effect. Accordingly, adherence at stage 1—namely the decision to acquire
a medication and initiate use—depends on biases in message interpretation and the
reliance on heuristic cues.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search