Misimagining the unimaginable: The disability paradox and health care decision making.
Abstract
Good decision making often requires accurate predictions about how potential outcomes will make one feel. However, people often mispredict the emotional impact of unfamiliar circumstances. For example, they often overestimate the emotional impact that chronic illnesses and disability will have on their lives. In the present article, the authors look at possible sources of error in both the happiness reports of patients with chronic illness or disability and the happiness predictions of healthy people asked to imagine the same illnesses and disabilities. On balance, the available evidence suggests that, whereas patients misreport their well-being, healthy people also mispredict the emotional impact that chronic illness and disability will have on their lives.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
People experiencing a wide range of illnesses and disabilities often report paradoxically high levels of quality of life and mood.
“People experiencing a wide range of illnesses and disabilities often report paradoxically high levels of [quality of life] and mood”
From Neurodiversity, epistemic injustice, and the good human life (2022) · cites this paper as Ubel et al., 2005
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 26 · Cited by 360
- Authors
- Ubel, P. A., Loewenstein, G., Schwarz, N., & Smith, D.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Venue
- Health Psychology
- Published
- 2005
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 4, Suppl
- Pages
- S57-S62
- ISSN
- 0278-6133 (ISSN-L)
- 1930-7810
- OpenAlex
- W1981436378
- Cited by
- 360
- References
- 26
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 19
- FWCI
- 16.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Health Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Optimism, Hope, and Well-being
- Keywords
- disability paradox, healthcare decision-making, emotional impact of illness, chronic disease, disability, patient-reported outcomes, health-related quality of life
- MeSH terms
- Adaptation, Psychological, Chronic Disease, Decision Making, Delivery of Health Care, Persons with Disabilities, Humans, Imagination, Patient Participation, Quality of Life, United States
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