Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:25:51.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bias in the Evaluation of Conflict of Interest Policies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Zachariah Sharek ,
Robert E. Schoen  and
George Loewenstein
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A wide range of medical institutions have developed and implemented policies to mitigate the adverse consequences of conflicts of interest. These newly implemented policies, which include regulation of industry contact with physicians and hospitals, controls on gifts from industry, and greater transparency in industry sponsored activities, have generated considerable controversy.

Formulating and evaluating policies in a neutral, unbiased fashion can be difficult for those personally affected. When people have a stake in an issue, they tend to process information in a selective fashion that supports their personal interests, a phenomenon known as “motivated reasoning.” When decision makers with preexisting opinions are exposed to information, they are inclined to selectively use the information to arrive at conclusions that justify their prior beliefs. When confronted with information that contradicts existing views, people evaluate it with greater skepticism. Additionally, once decision makers have reached a decision, they are likely to evaluate subsequent evidence in a biased manner that supports their decision.

Type
Independent
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , Summer 2012 , pp. 368 - 382
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brennan, T. A. et al. , “Health Industry Practices That Create Conflicts of Interest: A Policy Proposal for Academic Medical Centers,” JAMA 295, no. 4 (2006): 429–433.; Kassirer, J. P., On the Take: How America's Complicity with Big Business Can Endanger Your Health (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005) Stossel, T. P., “Regulating Academic-Industrial Research Relationships – Solving Problems or Stifling Progress?” New England Journal of Medicine 353, no. 10 (2005): 1060–1055; Duvall, D. G., “Conflict of Interest or Ideological Divide: The Need for Ongoing Collaboration between Physicians and Industry,” Current Medical Research and Opinion 22, no. 9 (2006): 1807–1812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, C. G. Ross, L. Lepper, M. R., “Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37, no. 11 (1979): 2098–2109; Kunda, Z., “The Case for Motivated Reasoning,” Psychological Bulletin 108, no. 3 (1990): 480–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ditto, P. Lopez, D., “Motivated Skepticism: Use of Differential Decision Criteria for Preferred and Nonpreferred Conclusions,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63, no. 4 (1992): 568–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilovich, T., How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reasoning in Everyday Life (New York: Free Press, 1991).Google Scholar
Simon, D. Krawczyk, D. C. Holyoak, K. J., “Construction of Preferences by Constraint Satisfaction,” Psychological Science 15, no. 5 (2004): 331–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pronin, E. Lin, D. Y. Ross, L., “The Bias Blind Spot: Perceptions of Bias in Self Versus Others,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28, no. 3 (2002): 369–381; Pronin, E. Gilovich, T. Ross, L., “Objectivity in the Eye of the Beholder: Divergent Perceptions of Bias in Self Versus Others,” Psychological Review 111, no. 3 (2004): 781–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, D. M. Detsky, A. S., “Everyone's a Little Bit Biased (Even Physicians),” JAMA 299, no. 24 (2008): 2893–2895; Dana, J. Loewenstein, G., “A Social Science Perspective on Gifts to Physicians from Industry,” JAMA 290, no. 2 (2003): 252–255; Choudhry, N. K. Stelfox, H. T. Detsky, A. S., “Relationships between Authors of Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Pharmaceutical Industry,” JAMA 287, no. 5 (2002): 612–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, E. G. Louis, K. S. Blumenthal, D., “Looking a Gift Horse in the Mouth: Corporate Gifts Supporting Life Sciences Research,” JAMA 279, no. 13 (1998): 995–999; Wazana, A., “Physicians and the Pharmaceutical Industry: Is a Gift Ever Just a Gift?” JAMA 283, no. 3 (2000): 373–380; Chren, M. M. Landefeld, C. S., “Physicians' Behavior and Their Interactions with Drug Companies: A Controlled Study of Physicians Who Requested Additions to a Hospital Drug Formulary,” JAMA 271, no. 9 (1994): 684–689; Campbell, E. G. et al. , “A National Survey of Physician-Industry Relationships,” New England Journal of Medicine 356, no. 17 (2007): 1742–1750; Boyd, E. A. Bero, L., “Assessing Faculty Financial Relationships with Industry: A Case Study,” JAMA 284, no. 17 (2000): 2209–2214; Bigel, K. S., “The Ethical Orientation of Financial Planners Who Are Engaged in Investment Activities: A Comparison of United States Practitioners Based on Professionalization and Compensation Sources,” Journal of Business Ethics 28, no. 4 (2000): 323–337; Boatright, J. R., “Conflicts of Interest in Financial Services,” Business and Society Review 105, no. 2 (2000): 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rick, S. I. Cryder, C. E. Loewenstein, G., “Tightwads and Spendthrifts,” Journal of Consumer Research 34, no. 6 (2008): 767–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, E. A. Lipton, S. Bero, L. A., “Implementation of Financial Disclosure Policies to Manage Conflicts of Interest,” Health Affairs 23, no. 23 (2004): 206–2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, M. Florencio, P. S., “Financial Conflicts of Interest in Human Subjects Research: The Problem of Institutional Conflicts,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 30, no. 3 (2002): 390–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Institute of Medicine, Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2009), available at <http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3740/47464/65721.aspx> (last visited April 2, 2012).+(last+visited+April+2,+2012).>Google Scholar