The Role of Emotions and Regulatory Focus in Decision Making That Involves Risk Tradeoffs
| Status: | Not yet recruiting |
|---|---|
| Conditions: | Cancer, Cancer |
| Therapuetic Areas: | Oncology |
| Healthy: | No |
| Age Range: | 18 - 70 |
| Updated: | 1/31/2019 |
| Start Date: | August 5, 2019 |
| End Date: | November 30, 2019 |
| Contact: | Erin M Ellis, Ph.D. |
| Email: | erin.ellis@nih.gov |
| Phone: | (240) 276-5646 |
Background:
People with cancer often have to make complex decisions about their treatment. For some of
these decisions, they have to weigh the benefits of a treatment against its side effects.
They may have to think about its potential to increase the risk of another disease. One
example is hormone replacement therapy. That reduces a woman s risk of getting colorectal
cancer, but it raises her risk of getting breast cancer. Researchers want to learn more about
how people make tradeoff decisions like these.
Objective:
To learn about how people respond to information about hypothetical health and medical
treatment options.
Eligibility:
Adults ages 18 70.
Design:
Participants will have one 30-minute visit.
Participants will complete a series of short questionnaires. These will be about their
beliefs and values. Some may be about cancer and heart disease risk. Participants ages 18 to
29 will answer questions about sexual health.
Participants will write a paragraph or two about a room in their house or about a life event.
Participants will read a series of stories. These will describe different hypothetical health
treatments.
The stories describe a pill that lowers the risk of one health condition, but raises the risk
for another. After each story, participants will note how willing they are to take the pill.
Participants will answer questions about the information that they got. They will also answer
questions about their health, beliefs, and opinions.
Participants will do 2 attention tasks computer.
People with cancer often have to make complex decisions about their treatment. For some of
these decisions, they have to weigh the benefits of a treatment against its side effects.
They may have to think about its potential to increase the risk of another disease. One
example is hormone replacement therapy. That reduces a woman s risk of getting colorectal
cancer, but it raises her risk of getting breast cancer. Researchers want to learn more about
how people make tradeoff decisions like these.
Objective:
To learn about how people respond to information about hypothetical health and medical
treatment options.
Eligibility:
Adults ages 18 70.
Design:
Participants will have one 30-minute visit.
Participants will complete a series of short questionnaires. These will be about their
beliefs and values. Some may be about cancer and heart disease risk. Participants ages 18 to
29 will answer questions about sexual health.
Participants will write a paragraph or two about a room in their house or about a life event.
Participants will read a series of stories. These will describe different hypothetical health
treatments.
The stories describe a pill that lowers the risk of one health condition, but raises the risk
for another. After each story, participants will note how willing they are to take the pill.
Participants will answer questions about the information that they got. They will also answer
questions about their health, beliefs, and opinions.
Participants will do 2 attention tasks computer.
Given that many preventive and therapeutic treatments for cancer lower the risk of one
disease, but increase the risk of another disease (or have substantial side effects),
patients and doctors often must make medical decisions that involve tradeoffs. When faced
with these tradeoffs, people make decisions based on factors beyond objective probability
estimates. Emotions and regulatory focus are known to influence judgment and risk propensity
in non-tradeoff decision-making contexts, but little is known about their independent and
joint effects on decision making in tradeoff scenarios where both options involve some degree
of risk. This study aims to generate fundamental knowledge about how individuals make
decisions in the context of these tradeoffs, and whether individuals with clinical disorders
or at risk for clinical disorders differ from healthy individuals in their decision making.
This will have immediate translational potential for applied studies of decision making among
cancer patients and those at increased risk for cancer. We plan to examine the effects of
discrete incidental affect on tradeoff decision making, and the role of regulatory focus as a
moderator of its effect. During visits to a laboratory at the University of Pittsburgh, human
subjects aged 18 to 70 will be randomly assigned to write about an emotional event (something
that made them angry or afraid depending on study condition) or about a room in their house
(neutral emotion condition). Then, they will read a series of scenarios that describe a pill
that lowers their risk of one health condition, but raises their risk for another. After
each, they will indicate their willingness to take the pill. Regulatory focus, risk
perceptions, and implicit measures of risk propensity and anticipated emotions will also be
assessed. Drawing on previous research, we hypothesize that participants asked to recall an
angry experience will be more willing to take the pill, and that this effect will be
particularly strong for those with a promotion-oriented regulatory focus. Prevention-focused
participants asked to recall an experience that made them feel afraid are expected to be
least willing to take the pill. We will also explore possible mechanisms underlying the
emotion induction s effect on pill choice, such as shifts in risk perceptions, biased
attentional focus, and implicitly measured anticipated emotions.
disease, but increase the risk of another disease (or have substantial side effects),
patients and doctors often must make medical decisions that involve tradeoffs. When faced
with these tradeoffs, people make decisions based on factors beyond objective probability
estimates. Emotions and regulatory focus are known to influence judgment and risk propensity
in non-tradeoff decision-making contexts, but little is known about their independent and
joint effects on decision making in tradeoff scenarios where both options involve some degree
of risk. This study aims to generate fundamental knowledge about how individuals make
decisions in the context of these tradeoffs, and whether individuals with clinical disorders
or at risk for clinical disorders differ from healthy individuals in their decision making.
This will have immediate translational potential for applied studies of decision making among
cancer patients and those at increased risk for cancer. We plan to examine the effects of
discrete incidental affect on tradeoff decision making, and the role of regulatory focus as a
moderator of its effect. During visits to a laboratory at the University of Pittsburgh, human
subjects aged 18 to 70 will be randomly assigned to write about an emotional event (something
that made them angry or afraid depending on study condition) or about a room in their house
(neutral emotion condition). Then, they will read a series of scenarios that describe a pill
that lowers their risk of one health condition, but raises their risk for another. After
each, they will indicate their willingness to take the pill. Regulatory focus, risk
perceptions, and implicit measures of risk propensity and anticipated emotions will also be
assessed. Drawing on previous research, we hypothesize that participants asked to recall an
angry experience will be more willing to take the pill, and that this effect will be
particularly strong for those with a promotion-oriented regulatory focus. Prevention-focused
participants asked to recall an experience that made them feel afraid are expected to be
least willing to take the pill. We will also explore possible mechanisms underlying the
emotion induction s effect on pill choice, such as shifts in risk perceptions, biased
attentional focus, and implicitly measured anticipated emotions.
- INCLUSION CRITERIA:
For Study A, community members will be invited to participate if they are aged 18 to 70.
For Study B, University at Pittsburgh students will be invited to participate if they are
aged 18 and over.
We found this trial at
1
site
4200 Fifth Ave
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260
(412) 624-4141
Phone: 412-624-8267
University of Pittsburgh The University of Pittsburgh is a state-related research university, founded as the...
Click here to add this to my saved trials
