Literature DB >> 16752603

Risk avoidance: graphs versus numbers.

Hannah Faye Chua1, J Frank Yates, Priti Shah.   

Abstract

There have long been speculations that graphical and numerical presentations of risk statistics differ in their impact on people's wilingness to pursue actions that could harm or even kill them. But research has been unclear about the processes whereby the pictorial character of graphical displays per se might affect those risky decisions or even whether such effects actually occur. In two studies, we demonstrate that the pictorial nature of a graphical risk display can, indeed, increase risk avoidance. This increase is associated with a heightened impression of the riskiness of less safe alternatives. The results suggest that this picture-driven, intensified sense of riskiness, in turn, rests on two kinds of mechanisms: one cognitive, the other affective. Cognitively, pictorial presentations impose weaker upper bounds on people's internal representations of the chances that riskier alternatives will bring about actual harm. Affectively, pictures ignite stronger, more aversive negative associations with riskier options and their outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16752603     DOI: 10.3758/bf03193417

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  11 in total

1.  Problems for judgment and decision making.

Authors:  R Hastie
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 24.137

2.  Risk as feelings.

Authors:  G F Loewenstein; E U Weber; C K Hsee; N Welch
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 17.737

3.  Construction of preferences by constraint satisfaction.

Authors:  Dan Simon; Daniel C Krawczyk; Keith J Holyoak
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2004-05

4.  An experimental study of the auction-value of an uncertain outcome.

Authors:  M G PRESTON; P BARATTA
Journal:  Am J Psychol       Date:  1948-04

5.  Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy.

Authors:  A Bechara; H Damasio; D Tranel; A R Damasio
Journal:  Science       Date:  1997-02-28       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Contingency judgment: primacy effects and attention decrement.

Authors:  J F Yates; S P Curley
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  1986-08

7.  Improving risk communication.

Authors:  R L Keeney; D von Winterfeldt
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  1986-12       Impact factor: 4.000

8.  The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior.

Authors:  B E Meyerowitz; S Chaiken
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1987-03

9.  Effects of color on emotions.

Authors:  P Valdez; A Mehrabian
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  1994-12

10.  A note on adults' color-emotion associations.

Authors:  M Hemphill
Journal:  J Genet Psychol       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 1.509

View more
  11 in total

1.  Bar graphs depicting averages are perceptually misinterpreted: the within-the-bar bias.

Authors:  George E Newman; Brian J Scholl
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2012-08

2.  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

3.  Emotion, Affect, and Risk Communication with Older Adults: Challenges and Opportunities.

Authors:  Melissa L Finucane
Journal:  J Risk Res       Date:  2008

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.  The effect of graphics on environmental health risk beliefs, emotions, behavioral intentions, and recall.

Authors:  Dolores J Severtson; Jeffrey B Henriques
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 4.000

6.  Testing different communication formats on responses to imagined risk of having versus missing the GSTM1 gene.

Authors:  James A Shepperd; Isaac M Lipkus; Saskia C Sanderson; Colleen M McBride; Suzanne C O'Neill; Sharron Docherty
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2012-08-13

7.  Stakeholder Perceptions of Risk in Construction.

Authors:  Dong Zhao; Andrew P McCoy; Brian M Kleiner; Thomas H Mills; Helen Lingard
Journal:  Saf Sci       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 4.877

8.  The effectiveness of a graphical presentation in addition to a frequency format in the context of familial breast cancer risk communication: a multicenter controlled trial.

Authors:  Lidewij Henneman; Jan C Oosterwijk; Christi J van Asperen; Fred H Menko; Caroline F Ockhuysen-Vermey; Piet J Kostense; Liesbeth Claassen; Daniëlle Rm Timmermans
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2013-04-29       Impact factor: 2.796

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.  Do Preferred Risk Formats Lead to Better Understanding? A Multicenter Controlled Trial on Communicating Familial Breast Cancer Risks Using Different Risk Formats.

Authors:  Lidewij Henneman; Christi J van Asperen; Jan C Oosterwijk; Fred H Menko; Liesbeth Claassen; Daniëlle Rm Timmermans
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2020-02-19       Impact factor: 2.711

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.