The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Medical Decision Making in Situations That Offer Multiple Alternatives
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether situations involving multiple options can paradoxically influence people to choose an option that would have been declined if fewer options were available. DESIGN: Mailed survey containing medical scenarios formulated in one of two versions. PARTICIPANTS: Two groups of physicians: members of the Ontario College of Family Physicians (response rate = 77%; n = 287) and neurologists and neurosurgeons affiliated with the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (response rate = 84%; n = 352). One group of legislators belonging to the Ontario Provincial Parliament (response rate = 32%; n = 41). INTERVENTION: The basic version of each scenario presented a choice between two options. The expanded version presented three options: the original two plus a third. The two versions otherwise contained identical information and were randomly assigned. OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants treatment recommendations. RESULTS: In one scenario involving a patient with osteoarthritis, family physicians were less likely to prescribe a medication when deciding between two medications than when deciding about only one medication (53% vs 72%; P < .005). Apparently, the difficulty in deciding between the two medications led some physicians to recommend not starting either. Similar discrepancies were found in decisions made by neurologists and neurosurgeons concerning carotid artery surgery and by legislators concerning hospital closures. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of additional options can increase decision difficulty and, hence, the tendency to choose a distinctive option or maintain the status quo. Awareness of this cognitive bias may lead to improved decision making in complex medical situations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Beneficial Effect of Carotid Endarterectomy in Symptomatic Patients with High-Grade Carotid Stenosis
(1991) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199108153250701 · Cited by 8,368
Status quo bias in decision making
Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00055564 · Cited by 5,897
Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.
Shafer, G. R., Kahnerman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1984) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2288362 · Cited by 5,657
Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment
(1978) · Evaluation and Program Planning · doi:10.1016/0149-7189(78)90042-3 · Cited by 3,946
Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty
Bell, D. E. (1982) · Operations Research · doi:10.1287/opre.30.5.961 · Cited by 2,977
Arky, R. A. (1994) · Cited by 2,632
Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis
Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/208899 · Cited by 1,943
Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion
Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224379202900301 · Cited by 1,725
Shafir, E. (1993) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(93)90034-s · Cited by 1,453
Self-citationChoice under Conflict: The Dynamics of Deferred Decision
Tversky, A., & Shafir, E. (1992) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00047.x · Cited by 1,013
Cited by
Connors, A. F., Dawson, N. V., Desbiens, N. A., Fulkerson, W. J., Goldman, L., Knaus, W. A., Lynn, J., Oye, R. K., Bergner, M., Damiano, A., et al. (1995) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.274.20.1591 · Cited by 2,764
The Power of Suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) Participation and Savings Behavior
Madrian, B. C., & Shea, D. F. (2001) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355301753265543 · Cited by 2,727
Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development.
Murphy, Black, Lamping, McKee, Sanderson, Askham, & Marteau (1998) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta2030 · Cited by 2,051
Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload
Scheibehenne, B., Greifeneder, R., & Todd, P. M. (2010) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/651235 · Cited by 1,070
Redelmeier, D. A., Bayoumi, A. M., Goldstein, R. S., & Guyatt, G. H. (1997) · American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · doi:10.1164/ajrccm.155.4.9105067 · Cited by 1,029
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Redelmeier, D. A.
- Venue
- JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1995-01-25
- Volume
- 273
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 302
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2057290859
- Cited by
- 422
- References
- 17
- FWCI
- 4.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Medical Decision Making in Situations That Offer Multiple Alternatives. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.1995.03520280048038
- The paper
- Redelmeier, D. A. (1995). Medical Decision Making in Situations That Offer Multiple Alternatives. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1995.03520280048038
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.