Literature DB >> 16022690

The greater ability of graphical versus numerical displays to increase risk avoidance involves a common mechanism.

James A Schirillo1, Eric R Stone.   

Abstract

By displaying a risk reduction of 50% graphically rather than numerically, Stone, Yates, and Parker significantly increased professed risk-avoidant behavior. The current experiments replicated this effect at various risk ratios. Specifically, participants were willing to spend more money to reduce a risk when the risk information was displayed by asterisks rather than by numbers for risk-reduction ratios ranging from 3% to 97%. Transforming the amount participants were willing to spend to logarithms significantly improved a linear fit to the data, suggesting that participants convert this variable within the decision-making process. Moreover, a log-linear model affords an exceptional fit to both the graphical and numerical data, suggesting that a graphical presentation elicits the same decision-making mechanism as does the numerical display. In addition, the data also suggest that each person removed from harm is weighted more by some additional factor in the graphical compared to the numerical presentations.

Entities:  

Year:  2005        PMID: 16022690     DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00624.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Risk Anal        ISSN: 0272-4332            Impact factor:   4.000


  12 in total

1.  Visual presentations of efficacy data in direct-to-consumer prescription drug print and television advertisements: A randomized study.

Authors:  Helen W Sullivan; Amie C O'Donoghue; Kathryn J Aikin; Dhuly Chowdhury; Rebecca R Moultrie; Douglas J Rupert
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2015-12-22

Review 2.  Rethinking health numeracy: a multidisciplinary literature review.

Authors:  Jessica S Ancker; David Kaufman
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2007-08-21       Impact factor: 4.497

Review 3.  Communicating uncertainty in cancer prognosis: A review of web-based prognostic tools.

Authors:  Mark Harrison; Paul K J Han; Borsika Rabin; Madelaine Bell; Hannah Kay; Luke Spooner; Stuart Peacock; Nick Bansback
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2018-12-12

4.  Communication of uncertainty regarding individualized cancer risk estimates: effects and influential factors.

Authors:  Paul K J Han; William M P Klein; Tom Lehman; Bill Killam; Holly Massett; Andrew N Freedman
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010-07-29       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  How to reduce the effect of framing on messages about health.

Authors:  Rocio Garcia-Retamero; Mirta Galesic
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2010-08-25       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 6.  Design features of graphs in health risk communication: a systematic review.

Authors:  Jessica S Ancker; Yalini Senathirajah; Rita Kukafka; Justin B Starren
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2006-08-23       Impact factor: 4.497

7.  Interactive graphics for expressing health risks: development and qualitative evaluation.

Authors:  Jessica S Ancker; Connie Chan; Rita Kukafka
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2009 Jul-Aug

8.  Laypersons' responses to the communication of uncertainty regarding cancer risk estimates.

Authors:  Paul K J Han; William M P Klein; Thomas C Lehman; Holly Massett; Simon C Lee; Andrew N Freedman
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2009-05-21       Impact factor: 2.583

9.  How do family physicians communicate about cardiovascular risk? Frequencies and determinants of different communication formats.

Authors:  Stefan Neuner-Jehle; Oliver Senn; Odette Wegwarth; Thomas Rosemann; Johann Steurer
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2011-04-05       Impact factor: 2.497

10.  Visual aids improve diagnostic inferences and metacognitive judgment calibration.

Authors:  Rocio Garcia-Retamero; Edward T Cokely; Ulrich Hoffrage
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-07-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.