Expensive seems better: The price of a non-effective drug modulates its perceived efficacy
Tóm tắt
Previous studies have shown that the price of a given product impacts the perceived quality of such product. This finding was also observed in medical contexts, showing that expensive drugs increase the placebo effect compared to inexpensive ones. However, addressing a drug's efficacy requires making causal inferences between the drug and the healing. These inferences rely on the contingency between these two events, a factor that is difficult to control in the placebo research. The present study aimed to test whether the price of a given drug modulates its perceived efficacy using a proper (though fictitious) non-effective drug, so that not only the objective contingency, but also the probability of the cause and the probability of the effect could be adequately controlled for. We expected higher efficacy judgements for the expensive non-effective drug than for the inexpensive one. To test this hypothesis, 60 volunteers participated in a contingency learning task that was programmed so that 72% of the patients healed regardless of whether they took the drug. Approximately one-half of the participants were told that the drug was expensive, whereas the other half were told that it was inexpensive. As expected, the efficacy judgements of participants who saw the expensive drug were significantly higher than those who saw the inexpensive one. Overall, our results showed that the price of a non-effective drug modulates its perceived efficacy, an effect that seems to be mediated by the estimated number of doses administered. This result parallels findings in the placebo literature but using a laboratory methodology that allows stronger control of the variables, suggesting that the illusory overestimation produced by the more expensive treatments might be on the basis of the greater efficacy of the more expensive placebos.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Allan, L. G. (1980). A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15(3), 147–149. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03334492
Allan, L. G., & Jenkins, H. M. (1980). The judgment of contingency and the nature of the response alternatives. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 34(1), 1–11.
Blanco, F., Barberia, I., & Matute, H. (2014). The lack of side effects of an ineffective treatment facilitates the development of a belief in its effectiveness. PLoS ONE, 9(1), e84084. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084084
Blumenthal-Barby, J. S., & Krieger, H. (2015). Cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making. Medical Decision Making, 35(4), 539–557. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X14547740
Boyle, P. J., & Lathrop, E. S. (2009). Are consumers’ perceptions of price-quality relationships well calibrated? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33(1), 58–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2008.00722.x
Chow, J. Y. L., Colagiuri, B., & Livesey, E. J. (2019). Bridging the divide between causal illusions in the laboratory and the real world: The effects of outcome density with a variable continuous outcome. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 4(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-018-0149-9
Chow, J. Y. L., Colagiuri, B., Rottman, B. M., Goldwater, M., & Livesey, E. J. (2021). Pseudoscientific health beliefs and the perceived frequency of causal relationships. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(21), 11196. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111196
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Espay, A. J., Norris, M. M., Eliassen, J. C., Dwivedi, A., Smith, M. S., Banks, C., Allendorfer, J. B., Lang, A. E., Fleck, D. E., Linke, M. J., & Szaflarski, J. P. (2015). Placebo effect of medication cost in Parkinson disease: A randomized double-blind study. Neurology, 84(8), 794–802. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000001282
Evers, A. W. M., Colloca, L., Blease, C., Annoni, M., Atlas, L. Y., Benedetti, F., Bingel, U., Büchel, C., Carvalho, C., Colagiuri, B., Crum, A. J., Enck, P., Gaab, J., Geers, A. L., Howick, J., Jensen, K. B., Kirsch, I., Meissner, K., Napadow, V., & Kelley, J. M. (2018). Implications of Placebo and Nocebo effects for clinical practice: Expert consensus. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 87(4), 204–210. https://doi.org/10.1159/000490354
Frotvedt, T. F., Bondevik, Ø., Seeligmann, V. T., & Sætrevik, B. (2020). Primacy Congruence and Confidence in Diagnostic Decision-Making. https://doi.org/10.31234/OSF.IO/F9382
Henry, D. A., Jones, M. A., Stehlik, P., & Glasziou, P. P. (2021). Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines: Findings from real world studies. Medical Journal of Australia, 215(4), 149. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.51182
Judd, V. C. (2000). The price–quality relationship. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 6(1), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1300/J038v06n01_02
Kao, S.-F., & Wasserman, E. A. (1993). Assessment of an information integration account of contingency judgment with examination of subjective cell importance and method of information presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(6), 1363–1386. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.19.6.1363
Kelemen, D., Rottman, J., & Seston, R. (2013). Professional physical scientists display tenacious teleological tendencies: Purpose-based reasoning as a cognitive default. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(4), 1074–1083. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030399
Kim, N. S., & Ahn, W. (2002). Clinical psychologists’ theory-based representations of mental disorders predict their diagnostic reasoning and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131(4), 451–476. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.131.4.451
Lichtenstein, D. R., Ridgway, N. M., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1993). Price perceptions and consumer shopping behavior: A field study. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(2), 234. https://doi.org/10.2307/3172830
Mamede, S., van Gog, T., van den Berge, K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., van Saase, J. L. C. M., van Guldener, C., & Schmidt, H. G. (2010). Effect of availability bias and reflective reasoning on diagnostic accuracy among internal medicine residents. JAMA, 304(11), 1198. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.1276
Marsh, J. K., Burke, C. T., & De Los Reyes, A. (2016). The sweet spot of clinical intuitions: Predictors of the effects of context on impressions of conduct disorder symptoms. Psychological Assessment, 28(2), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000173
Marsh, J. K., Zeveney, A. S., & De Los Reyes, A. (2020). Informant discrepancies in judgments about change during mental health treatments. Clinical Psychological Science, 8(2), 318–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702619894905
Matute, H., Blanco, F., Yarritu, I., Díaz-Lago, M., Vadillo, M. A., & Barberia, I. (2015). Illusions of causality: How they bias our everyday thinking and how they could be reduced. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(888), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00888
Matute, H., Yarritu, I., & Vadillo, M. A. (2011). Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience. British Journal of Psychology, 102, 392–405. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712610X532210
Monroe, K. B. (2003). Price and consumers’ perceptions of value. McGraw-Hill.
Neal, T. M. S., Lienert, P., Denne, E., & Singh, J. P. (2022). A general model of cognitive bias in human judgment and systematic review specific to forensic mental health. Law and Human Behavior, 46(2), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000482
Olson, J. (1977). Price as an informational cue: Effects on product evaluations. In A. J. Woodside, J. N. Sheth, & P. D. Bennett (Eds.), Consumer and industrial buying behavior (pp. 267–286). Elsevier North-Holland.
Shanks, D. R., & Dickinson, A. (1987). Associative accounts of causality judgment. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 21, pp. 229–261). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60030-4
Shiv, B., Carmon, Z., & Ariely, D. (2005). Placebo effects of marketing actions: Consumers may get what they pay for. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(4), 383–393. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.2005.42.4.383
Tingley, D., Yamamoto, T., Hirose, K., Keele, L., & Imai, K. (2014). Mediation: R package for causal mediation analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 59(5), 1–38.
Vadillo, M. A., Blanco, F., Yarritu, I., & Matute, H. (2016). Single- and dual-process models of biased contingency detection. Experimental Psychology, 63(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/A000309
Völckner, F., & Hofmann, J. (2007). The price-perceived quality relationship: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its determinants. Marketing Letters, 18(3), 181–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-007-9013-2
Waber, R. L., Shiv, B., Carmon, Z., & Ariely, D. (2008). Commercial features of placebo and therapeutic efficacy. JAMA, 299(9), 1016–1117. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.299.9.1016
Yarritu, I., & Matute, H. (2015). Previous knowledge can induce an illusion of causality through actively biasing behavior. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00389