Salta al menu principale di navigazione Salta al contenuto principale Salta al piè di pagina del sito


N. 3 (2021)

Health comes first: Smart heuristics to stay healthy

12 October 2021


In the classical “jacket-calculator” dilemma it is postulated decision is regulated by a mental topical accounting process which orients people to consider a discount price when purchasing items. We proposed an adapted version of the classical “jacket-calculator” task re-framing the choice in a medical context. Our results supported the view that simple minimal mental accounts influence evaluation and choice in the medical context where time, instead of price, represents a fundamental cue of the decision analysis. The decision process adopted by participants tended to be associated with a lexicographic decision mechanism where “time” appears the most effective cue of a “take-the-best” heuristic to predict people’s behaviour accurately. These findings broaden the body of evidence indicating that bounded rationality in human decisions is intrinsically connected with the decisional context and different contexts may elicit different mental accounting strategies. In addition, the study stressed the need to enhance the dialogue between the more recent paradigm of the ecological rationality with the classical interpretations of bounded rationality because the two paradigms, not rarely opposed to each other, can provide hints to the interpretation of the decision process, with practical considerations for future interventions in health education and public health.

Riferimenti bibliografici

  1. Ariely, D. (2009). Predictably irrational, revised and expanded edition. Harper Collings Publishers: London.
  2. Baldi, P.L., Iannello, P. Riva, S., and Antonietti, A.(2013) Cognitive reflection and socially biased decisions, Studia Psychologica, 55(4): 265.
  3. Boger, E., Ellis, J., Latter, S., Foster, C., Kennedy, A., Jones, F., & Demain, S. (2015). Self-management and self-management support outcomes: a systematic review and mixed research synthesis of stakeholder views. PloS one, 10(7), e0130990.
  4. Chater, N., Teppo, F., Funder, D.C.,Gigerenzer, G., Koenderink, J.J., Krueger, J.I. Noble, D. (2018). Mind, rationality, and cognition: An interdisciplinary debate. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(2): 793-826.
  5. Cipresso, P., Villani, D., Repetto, C., Bosone, L., Balgera, A., Mauri, M., Villamira, M., Antonietti, A., & Riva G. (2015). Computational psychometrics in communication and implications in decision making. Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine, 985032, 1-10, DOI: 10.1155/2015/985032.
  6. Coulter, A., Parsons, S., Askham, J., & World Health Organization (2008). Where are the patients in decision-making about their own care? (No. EUR/07/5065810). Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.
  7. Duxbury, D., Keasey, K., Zhang, H., & Chow, S. L. (2005). Mental accounting and decision making: Evidence under reverse conditions where money is spent for time saved. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26(4): 567-580.
  8. Frederick, S. (2002). Automated choice heuristics. In Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.) (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge university press, 548-559.
  9. Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. Psychological review, 103(4): 650.
  10. Godek, J., & Murray, K. B. (2012). Effects of spikes in the price of gasoline on behavioral intentions: a mental accounting explanation. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(3): 295-302.
  11. Gong, J., Zhang, Y., Yang, Z., Huang, Y., Feng, J., & Zhang, W. (2013). The framing effect in medical decision-making: a review of the literature. Psychology, health & medicine, 18(6): 645-653.
  12. Gravelle, H., and Rees, R. (2004). Microeconomics. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
  13. Riva, S., Monti, M., & Antonietti, A. (2011). Simple heuristics in over-thecounter drug choices: A new hint for medical education and practice. Advances in medical education and practice, 2, 59.
  14. Hertwig, R., & Hoffrage, U. (2001). Bounded and ecological rationality: a research program. Psychologische Rundschau, 52(1): 11-19.
  15. Iannello, P., Perucca, V., Riva, S., Antonietti, A., & Pravettoni, G. (2015). What do physicians believe about the way decisions are made? A pilot study on metacognitive knowledge in the medical context. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 11(4): 1-16, 1841-0413. DOI: 10.5964/ejop.v11i4.979.
  16. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2013). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. In Handbook of the fundamentals of financial decision making: Part I, 99-127.
  17. Kahneman, D., Wakker, P., & Sarin, R. (1997). Back to Bentham: Explorations of experienced utility. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112: 375-405.
  18. Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. American economic review, 93(5): 1449-1475.
  19. Katsikopoulos, K. V. (2011). Psychological heuristics for making inferences: Definition, performance, and the emerging theory and practice. Decision Analysis, 8(1): 10-29.
  20. Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice. Cognition & emotion, 14(4): 473-493.
  21. Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of personality and social psychology, 81(1): 146.
  22. Martignon, L., & Hoffrage, U. (2002). Fast, frugal, and fit: Simple heuristics for paired comparison. Theory and Decision, 52(1): 29-71.
  23. Patel, V. L., Kaufman, D. R., & Arocha, J. F. (2002). Emerging paradigms of cognition in medical decision-making. Journal of biomedical informatics, 35(1): 52-75.
  24. Petrocchi, S., Iannello, P., Lecciso, F., Levante, A., Antonietti, A., & Schulz, P. J. (2019). Interpersonal trust in doctor-patient relation: Evidence from dyadic analysis and association with quality of dyadic communication. Social Science & Medicine, 235, 112391.
  25. Renzi, C., Riva, S., Masiero, M., & Pravettoni, G. (2016). The choice dilemma in chronic hematological conditions: why choosing is not only a medical issue? A psycho-cognitive perspective. Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology, 99: 134-140.
  26. Riva, S., Iannello, P., Antonietti, A., Pravettoni, G. (2015). What are judgment skills in health literacy? A psycho-cognitive prospective from Judgment and Decision Making (JDM) research. Patient Preference and Adherence, 9: 1677-1686. DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S90207.
  27. Riva, S., Monti, M., Iannello, P., & Antonietti, A. (2012). The representation of risk in routine medical experience: what actions for contemporary health policy?. PLoS One, 7(11), e48297.
  28. Riva, S., Monti, M., Iannello, P., Pravettoni, G., Schulz, P. J., & Antonietti, A. (2014). A preliminary mixed-method investigation of trust and hidden signals in medical consultations. PLoS One, 9(3), e90941.
  29. Simon, H. A. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization science, 2(1): 125-134.
  30. Thaler, R. H. (1999). Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral decision making, 12(3): 183-206.
  31. Todd, P. M., & Gigerenzer, G. E. (2012). Ecological rationality: Intelligence in the world. Oxford University Press.
  32. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481): 453-458.


Caricamento metriche ...