Mispredicting and misremembering: patients with renal failure overestimate improvements in quality of life after a kidney transplant

OBJECTIVE: People tend to overestimate the impact that future events will have on their quality of life. In the case of a medical treatment like kidney transplant, this should result in biased predictions--overestimates of how much the transplant will benefit quality of life. The authors surveyed kidney transplant patients, both before and after transplant, to test whether they would overestimate the benefits of a successful transplant for their quality of life. DESIGN: The authors interviewed 307 patients on a waiting list for cadaveric renal or renal-pancreatic transplant, and 195 patients one year after a successful transplant. A sub sample of patients were interviewed both before and after transplant. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The survey included measures of quality of life, both in terms of an overall estimate (0-100), and across sub domains, including health, employment, and travel. RESULTS: Cross-sectional results suggested that overall quality of life improved after transplant, but the predictions of pretransplant patients overestimated the magnitude of the improvement (p < .01). In addition, patients predicted large improvements in specific life domains that did not change. These results were confirmed in longitudinal, prospective analyses. Additional analyses showed that posttransplant patients recalled their pretransplant quality of life to be much lower than what they had reported at the time. CONCLUSION: Consistent with an impact bias, patients substantially overestimated the benefits of a successful kidney transplant, both in terms of predictions of life after treatment, and in their memories of QOL before the transplant.     

The Generality Problem for Reliabilism

Philosophical Studies -     

Short-term retention of superimposed and of spatially distinct multiletter visual arrays

On each trial, Ss attempted to retain a series of five visually presented letters while concurrently “shadowing” (repeating aloud) a rapid series of aurally presented letters. If serial-position accuracy is ignored, they were able to store more than only the last letter of a typical series, even though all five letters appeared on the same screen, and that performance was superior to the retention of five auditorily presented letters. Together, these findings suggest that a form of visual storage might have been employed for the retention of visual stimuli and, specifically, one that was relatively immune to erasure as compared to “iconic” storage. In further support of that hypothesis, retention of such visual series as measured by free-recall accuracy was not inferior to that of five letters, each of which was presented on a separate screen.     

The effect of an additional task on recall accuracy in serial short term memory: Preemption of rehearsal or acquisition?

In a serial short term memory test, being either visual or auditory, Ss got the additional instruction to make immediate binary classification responses (BcRs) to those items that occured after a marker which was presented somewhere in the list. The results show a general negative effect of BcRs on recall accuracy of both visually and auditory presented lists i.e. both on items which had been classified during presentation and on those which had occured before the marker arrived. The findings are contrary to the view that BcRs preclude acquisition of the items, but the hypothesis is confirmed that BcRs preempt intra trial rehearsal.