sorry, we can't preview this file
Table_1_More Information = Less Aggression? Impact of Information Asymmetry on Chinese Patients' Aggression.xlsx
Background: Information asymmetry is a widely studied economic phenomenon. It refers to the situation in which one group in a transaction has more information than the other. Nowadays, information asymmetry has been studied not only as a financial topic but also as a potential reason for essential social problems.
Objective: To take Chinese doctor–patient relationship as an example and investigate the relationship among information asymmetry, trust level, and aggression behavior using an experimental design.
Methods: A total of 44 undergraduates (information asymmetry group, N = 22, 5 males, 17 females, mean age = 18.95, SD = 0.18; information symmetry group, N = 22, 7 males, 15 females, mean age = 19.27, SD = 0.18) took part in our experiment. Different slides and guidance were used to create a virtual information asymmetry situation, and we use the Wake Forest Physician Trust Scale (WFPTS) and the hot sauce allocation paradigm to measure their trust level and aggression, respectively.
Results: Participants in the information asymmetry group allocated significantly more hot sauce to the doctor (p <.005, d = 1.09) and displayed significantly lower trust level (p < 0.05, d = −0.78) than the control group. Patients' trust level had a significant mediating effect (95% confidence interval [−1.39, –0.05]).
Conclusion: Asymmetric information may arouse patients' aggression and lower their trust in doctors. Patients' trust level is also a significant partial mediator between their aggression and information asymmetry. The current study reinforces the urgent need for information openness in the Chinese medical system.
History
References
- https://doi.org//10.1016/S0165-4101(01)00018-0
- https://doi.org//10.2307/1879431
- https://doi.org//10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x
- https://doi.org//10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.00267.x
- https://doi.org//10.1016/0191-8869(94)90048-5
- https://doi.org//10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2012.03.033
- https://doi.org//10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.482
- https://doi.org//10.1016/S0147-1767(00)00042-0
- https://doi.org//10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00091-0
- https://doi.org//10.1177/1948550610361387
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s10802-012-9687-7
- https://doi.org//10.1080/00036840600707142
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.ijsu.2006.01.005
- https://doi.org//10.1001/jama.1987.03400220118055
- https://doi.org//10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00098-8
- https://doi.org//10.1177/1077558702059003004
- https://doi.org//10.12659/MSM.889992
- https://doi.org//10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1999)25:5<331::AID-AB2>3.0.CO;2-1
- https://doi.org//10.1002/ab.20066
- https://doi.org//10.1037/0022-3514.88.5.736
Usage metrics
Read the peer-reviewed publication
Categories
- Health and Community Services
- Health Care Administration
- Health Counselling
- Health Information Systems (incl. Surveillance)
- Health Promotion
- Preventive Medicine
- Primary Health Care
- Public Health and Health Services not elsewhere classified
- Medicine, Nursing and Health Curriculum and Pedagogy
- Nanotoxicology, Health and Safety
- Mental Health Nursing
- Midwifery
- Nursing not elsewhere classified
- Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health
- Aged Health Care
- Care for Disabled
- Community Child Health
- Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety
- Epidemiology
- Family Care