Abstract
ABSTRACT In six randomized online experiments with 2,647 medical doctors we test whether – depending on the choice architecture – physicians engaged in prescribing decisions in public organizations fall prey to systematic error (i.e. bias) and make significantly different choices when faced with the same clinical case (i.e. level noise). Results show that experts tend to make irrational choices that are influenced by outgroup bias, social comparison, past behaviour, confirmation bias, loss aversion, equivalence framing, and asymmetric dominance. We also find evidence of significant level noise, that is, between-prescriber variability, with the distribution of responses differing remarkably across experimental arms.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
