1 / 26

Research Doctorate in Psychology: Cognitive, Emotional and Communicative Processes

May, 19th, 2008 TO ACT OR NOT TO ACT?. Research Doctorate in Psychology: Cognitive, Emotional and Communicative Processes. The role of emotions in omission vs. commission dilemmas. Ph.D, Raffaella Di Schiena Advisor: Guglielmo Bellelli (University of Bari, IT) Co-advisors:

marny-cook
Download Presentation

Research Doctorate in Psychology: Cognitive, Emotional and Communicative Processes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. May, 19th, 2008 TO ACT OR NOT TO ACT? Research Doctorate in Psychology: Cognitive, Emotional and Communicative Processes The role of emotions in omission vs. commission dilemmas 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)

  2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND THEORY OF RATIONAL CHOICE (Von Neumann & Morgenstern, 1947) A RATIONAL DECISION MAKER should decide in accordance with following anxioms: • Dominance • Invariance However, when faced with an omission vs. commission dilemma, decision makers are biased towards omission, even when the omission is riskier OMISSION BIAS (OB) (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: 10/10,000 Death risk due to the side effects of the vaccine: 5/10,000

  3. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 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)

  4. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Omission bias: A literature review (continued)

  5. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 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

  6. STUDY 1 and 2: OB and anticipated regret GENERAL PREDICTION Individuals prefer the omission over the action because they expect to feel less regret in case of negative outcome Anticipated regret Manipulation Omission bias

  7. Study 1: OB and anticipated regret Participants: 211 Undegraduates at University of Bari Brain infection scenario Manipulation of anticipated regret salience by Outcome Knowledge Expectation No Otcome Knowledge (n=69) “You will never get to know the outcome of your choice” Omission preference 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 • D.Vs.: • Choice • Maximum level of risk acepted following the action

  8. STUDY 1: OB and anticipated regret RESULTS on main DVs M=26,54 ns. p. < .05 ns. p. < .05 Results on mediator Mediation analysis was not possible

  9. 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

  10. Study 2: OB and anticipated regret Participants: 157 Undegraduates at Tilburg University Vaccination scenario Manipulation of the causal link between action and possible negative outcome No causal link (N=53) Sometimes the vaccine fails. The vaccine simply lowers the risk. Omission choice 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

  11. Mediation Analysis (Baron & Kenny, 1986) Anticipated Regret from Action O.R.= 1.70** β = 0,51**** No C.L. vs. Ambiguous C.L. vs. Clear C.L. Probability of Omission choice O.R.= 18.45** O.R.= 2.28 , p = .074 β = - 0.20* O.R. = 0.43**** Anticipated Regret from Omission

  12. 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

  13. Study 3: OB and affective vs. analytical evaluation THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OB in a dual-process view • Two different modes of processing (Epstein,1994; Epstein et al., 1996) • Two different styles of processing (Pacini & Epstein, 1999)

  14. Study 3: OB and affective vs. analytical evaluation HYPOTHESIS An affective-experiential evaluation process, rather than analytical, will bring about higher OB PREDICTORS • 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

  15. 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 Study 3: OB and affective vs. analytical processes RESULTS

  16. Study 3: OB and affective vs. analytical evaluation 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 relevance or availability of previous experiences? Is it a matter of attitude towards health care and physicians among italian participants?

  17. 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 • General hypothesis: • Trust Action VS Omission + High Anxiety Action bias Omission bias Experimental Design

  18. Study 4OB and AB in health decision making: The role of anxiety and trust METHOD • 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) • 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 HYPOTHESIS

  19. Study 4OB and AB in health decision making: The role of anxiety and trust RESULTS by scenario • Vaccination scenario: • Trust affected preference in the expected direction (TPS) • β= 0.15, p < .05 • Anxiety determined preference for action • O.R. = 0.78, p= .07; β= 0.15, p < .05 • Three-way interaction (Trust by Anxiety by Choice) on MLRA • F(4, 154)= 2.99, p < .05,ηp2 = .04 Action: 54.1% Omission: 45.9%

  20. Slow growing cancer scenario: • Trust affected preference in the expected direction • β= 0.13, p < .05 • Anxiety determined preference for action • O.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, ηp2 =.05 Action: 77.0% Omission: 23.0% Brain infection scenario: A significant effect of Trust (β= -2.57, p < .05) Action: 47.0% Omission: 53.0%

  21. General conclusion Was the emotional perspective useful? It was fruitful! • 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

  22. Merci

  23. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND: OB in choice

  24. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND: OB in choice (continued)

More Related