The effects of accountability on bias in physician decision making: Going from bad to worse

Abstract

Members of the Iowa Academy of Family Physicians participated in a survey study in which they were asked to make hypothetical decisions in either high- or low-conflict treatment conditions. In the low-conflict treatment condition the options were a common medication with a referral or a referral only. In the high-conflict treatment condition the same two options were given plus another attractive medication. In addition, we manipulated accountability by asking half of the participants to provide a written defense of their treatment options, which they would then agree to discuss at a later time. The results showed that physicians in the high-conflict condition chose the referral-only option significantly more than the physicians in the low-conflict condition, thus violating the normative rule of regularity. Moreover, that pattern was significantly amplified for physicians who were held accountable for their treatment decisions. These findings replicate and extend previous research and are discussed within the framework of reason-based choice.