Shortly after I began this blog, I posted on the attribution and dissonance implications from physicians regarding Hormone Replacement Therapy. You might recall the shocking news that HRT, prescribed to reduce symptoms for menopausal women, was associated with increases in health problems, including breast cancer. I predicted – not too cleverly – an impending legal train wreck as women or their surviving loved ones sued. The train wreck is in motion.

Today we read reports of a major jury decision in favor of a woman again Wyeth. The jury awarded the plaintiff $2.75 million and will decide on punitive awards later. There are over 5,000 pending cases against Wyeth.

Okay, I got the legal train wreck prediction correct. (Big deal. Imagine predicting that people will sue after they’ve been harmed!?!) What surprises me here is how physicians have managed to elude legal and financial responsiblity here. They prescribed HRT like it was Wrigley’s Spearmint Gum and if they had done their due diligence, the HRT epidemic would have been seriously reduced. Typically you read counterclaims from physician groups that they were pressured by Big Pharma to do this (which ties back to the persuasion angle here with attribution and dissonance).

I still believe that making the Pharmas the bad guys here is a dangerous strategy for the health and medical community. Physicians in particular need to be perceived with high levels of trust and credibility to function effectively. In this case, physicians are avoiding blame on HRT by claiming that the Pharmas unduly pressured them into bad prescription. That looks untrustworthy and uncredible.

As these 5,000 plus cases work through the legal system, look for physician involvement and response. I think that the AMA should stand up and offer a collective mea culpa. It’s a tough hit in the short term, but would strengthen those perceptions of trust and competence. Everyone makes mistakes. Professionals admit that to their advantage.

Rarely do I find a gift-wrapped example of biased processing in media reporting. Usually writers try to obscure this characteristic because it makes them look . . . biased. Here’s the lead paragraph from today’s NY Times.

I listened to every second of Wednesday’s four-hour hearing, looking for hints to bolster my suspicion that the “American people” were being set up for an intentional walk for Roger Clemens. There were code phrases, like “We’re not here to convict” or “Let’s move on” and, of course, “Let’s get back to baseball.”

The article goes on in detail about the author’s concerns, gathering a long trail of evidence well supported by external sources. It’s a pretty well done piece of journalism especially with its outright declaration of bias.

My point here is not to condemn journalism or weigh in on Roger Clemens, but to highlight the key characteristic of biased processing. While the Times writer calls it “suspicion” he’s talking about a prior belief he holds and how he engaged in high WATT processing of the Clemens hearings to find persuasion arguments to support that prior belief. In other words, the writer was on the Central Route with that high willingness and ability to think, but rather than use arguments to find a conclusion the way an Objective processor would operate, the Biased Processor uses a conclusion to find arguments.

If you scan through the remainder of the article you find the “prior belief” of the writer: Race. The author is concerned that there is a disparity in the case of the white Roger Clemens compared to the black Barry Bonds and the black Marion Jones. Again, without taking any stand on anything in these cases, look at the processing characteristic of the writer. This case has clearly pressed the hot button on a huge human trait – race – and this “prior belief” is now driving the persuasive information processing.

Now, Biased Processing isn’t Wrong or Bad. It’s just not Objective Processing in the ELM sense of the term. And we can thank the New York Times for this nice little teaching illustration.