Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Medical Decision Making
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hershey, J. C.
Right arrow Articles by Baron, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hershey, J. C.
Right arrow Articles by Baron, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Clinical Reasoning and Cognitive Processes

John C. Hershey, PhD

Jonathan Baron, PhD

Expected utility theory, and the Bayesian probability theory on which it is based, form the normative basis of most work in medical decision analysis. Recent work in the psychology of judgments and decisions indicates that people do not conform to the axioms of this theory and that these deviations occur in clinical reasoning as well as in the psychology laboratory. At issue is what to do now. The authors argue that the important next steps lie at the interface between descriptive, prescriptive, and normative accounts, all of which affect each other. They point to examples in which the simplest application of supposedly normative theory seems inappropriate, and suggest ways in which the tension between normative and de scriptive models may be resolved. Key words: decision analysis; expected utility theory; clinical reasoning; cognitive processes. (Med Decis Making 7:203-211, 1987)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 7, No. 4, 203-211 (1987)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X8700700402
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
M. L. DeKay
Physicians' Anticipated Regret and Diagnostic Testing: Comment on Hozo and Djulbegovic, 2008
Med Decis Making, May 1, 2009; 29(3): 317 - 319.
[PDF]

Home page
 Management ScienceHome page
D. Faro and Y. Rottenstreich
Affect, Empathy, and Regressive Mispredictions of Others' Preferences Under Risk
Management Science, April 1, 2006; 52(4): 529 - 541.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
P. C. Sorum, E. Mullet, J. Shim, S. Bonnin-Scaon, G. Chasseigne, and J. Cogneau
Avoidance of Anticipated Regret: The Ordering of Prostate-Specific Antigen Tests
Med Decis Making, March 1, 2004; 24(2): 149 - 159.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Management ScienceHome page
H. Bleichrodt, J. L. Pinto, and P. P. Wakker
Making Descriptive Use of Prospect Theory to Improve the Prescriptive Use of Expected Utility
Management Science, November 1, 2001; 47(11): 1498 - 1514.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Communication Disorders QuarterlyHome page
N. L. Records and A. L. Weiss
Clinical Judgment : an Overview
Communication Disorders Quarterly, January 1, 1990; 13(2): 153 - 165.
[Abstract] [PDF]