Perspective-Taking Judgments of Medication Acceptance: Inferences from Relative Importance about the Impact and Combination of Information

Perspective-taking judgments of medication acceptance were studied for hypothetical mental health treatment scenarios. Three types of information were manipulated in all possible subsets: level of trust in the medication prescriber, severity of the hypothetical mental health condition being experienced, and the potential side effects of the medication. Subjects made judgments from four perspectives: self perspective and that of three other hypothetical people who were each said to place the most importance on one of the three cues. The results showed individual differences in self-reports of the relative importance of the cues which, in turn, predicted differences in judgment patterns. Subjects modified their cue use when making judgments from the perspectives of hypothetical others. The interaction patterns and rank orders of the perspective-taking judgments resembled the individual differences in judgments made from subjects’ own perspectives, but the perspective-taking judgments showed extreme effects of the most important cue. There was also some influence of subjects’ own perspectives on their perspective-taking judgments. When only a subset of the three cues was given, the judgment pattern depended on the importance of the cue that was omitted. The relative weight averaging model accounted for the judgments of only a minority of the subjects. Models which propose that subjects infer the value of missing information were also unsuccessful in explaining the data of the majority. Modifications of those models are proposed.