The impact of anecdotal information on medical decision-making

Sara Jaramillo, Zachary Horne, Micah Goldwater

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Abstract

In prior research, arguments using both anecdotal and statistical evidence are more persuasive than arguments using either alone (Allen, Bruflat, Fucilla, Kramer, McKellips, Ryan, & Spiegelhoff, 2000; Hornikx, 2005). However, it is less clear how people integrate information when the statistics and the anecdotes present conflicting information. In three preregistered experiments, we tested how people integrate conflicting information to judge the efficacy of a medicine in a clinical trial. Participants read either an anecdote from someone in the trial, summary statistics about the trial, or both types of information. We found that reading an anecdote from a member of the trial for whom treatment was ineffective reduced people’s beliefs in a medical treatment even when participants received strong evidence that the treatment was effective. In Experiment 3, we found that introducing icon arrays increased the perceived efficacy of the treatment but did not eliminate the effect of the anecdote.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationProceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society
Place of PublicationMontreal
PublisherCognitive Science Society
Pages471-477
ISBN (Print)0991196775
Publication statusPublished - 27 Jul 2019
Externally publishedYes
Event41st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society - Palais des Congrès de Montréal, Montréal , Canada
Duration: 24 Jul 201927 Jul 2019
Conference number: 41
https://cognitivesciencesociety.org/cogsci-2019/

Conference

Conference41st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society
Abbreviated titleCOGSCI 2019
CountryCanada
CityMontréal
Period24/07/1927/07/19
Internet address

Keywords

  • anecdotal reasoning
  • medical decision-making
  • open science

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The impact of anecdotal information on medical decision-making'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this