This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kahn, B. E. Articles by Luce, M. F. Search for Related Content

Understanding High–Stakes Consumer Decisions: Mammography Adherence Following False–Alarm Test Results

The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 3730 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104
The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 3730 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104
kahn{at}wharton.upenn.edu
luce{at}wharton.upenn.edu

Consumers often have to decide whether to acquire information in high–stakes decision domains. We study women in mammography waiting rooms to test how a "false–alarm" result (i.e., an indication that a malady is present when a "more accurate" follow–up test reveals it is not) affects willingness to get retested. In Study 1 we show that, given a false–alarm result, life–threatening test consequences are associated with more disutility for future testing than when test consequences are less significant; this does not hold for normal test results. In Study 2 in the mammography context, we show that patients receiving a false–alarm result experienced more stress, were less likely to believe that a positive mammography result indicated cancer, and more likely to delay mammography than patients receiving normal results unless they were also told that they may be vulnerable to breast cancer in the future. We show that delays in planned adherence following a false–alarm result can be mitigated by an information intervention. Finally, we have preliminary evidence that a previous history of false–positive results can cause a consumer to both react more negatively to emotional stress and respond more positively to coping information.

Key Words: Value of Information; Decision Making Under Uncertainty; Medical Decision Making; Stress; Cancer False–Positive; Patient Preferences; Mammography; Medical Testing; High–Stakes Decisions
History: Received: April 20, 2001;

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. L. Berry, J. T. Parish, R. Janakiraman, L. Ogburn-Russell, G. R. Couchman, W. L. Rayburn, and J. Grisel Patients' Commitment to Their Primary Physician and Why It Matters Ann. Fam. Med, January 1, 2008; 6(1): 6 - 13. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. L. Berry and N. Bendapudi Health Care: A Fertile Field for Service Research Journal of Service Research, November 1, 2007; 10(2): 111 - 122. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Duhachek, A. T. Coughlan, and D. Iacobucci Results on the Standard Error of the Coefficient Alpha Index of Reliability Marketing Science, January 1, 2005; 24(2): 294 - 301. [Abstract] [PDF]