Jessica S Ancker1, Elke U Weber2,3, Rita Kukafka1,4. 1. Department of Biomedical Informatics, College of Physicians and Surgeons (JSA, RK) 2. Department of Psychology (EUW) 3. Department of Management, Columbia University Business School (EUW) Columbia University, New York. 4. Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health (RK) Columbia University, New York.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health risks are sometimes illustrated with stick figures, with a certain proportion colored to indicate they are affected by the disease. Perception of these graphics may be affected by whether the affected stick figures are scattered randomly throughout the group or arranged in a block. OBJECTIVE: . To assess the effects of stick-figure arrangement on first impressions of estimates of proportion, under a 10-s deadline. DESIGN: . Questionnaire. Participants and Setting. Respondents recruited online (n = 100) or in waiting rooms at an urban hospital (n = 65). Intervention. Participants were asked to estimate the proportion represented in 6 unlabeled graphics, half randomly arranged and half sequentially arranged. Measurements. Estimated proportions. RESULTS: . Although average estimates were fairly good, the variability of estimates was high. Overestimates of random graphics were larger than overestimates of sequential ones, except when the proportion was near 50%; variability was also higher with random graphics. Although the average inaccuracy was modest, it was large enough that more than one quarter of respondents confused 2 graphics depicting proportions that differed by 11 percentage points. Low numeracy and educational level were associated with inaccuracy. Limitations. Participants estimated proportions but did not report perceived risk. CONCLUSIONS: . Randomly arranged arrays of stick figures should be used with care because viewers' ability to estimate the proportion in these graphics is so poor that moderate differences between risks may not be visible. In addition, random arrangements may create an initial impression that proportions, especially large ones, are larger than they are.
BACKGROUND: Health risks are sometimes illustrated with stick figures, with a certain proportion colored to indicate they are affected by the disease. Perception of these graphics may be affected by whether the affected stick figures are scattered randomly throughout the group or arranged in a block. OBJECTIVE: . To assess the effects of stick-figure arrangement on first impressions of estimates of proportion, under a 10-s deadline. DESIGN: . Questionnaire. Participants and Setting. Respondents recruited online (n = 100) or in waiting rooms at an urban hospital (n = 65). Intervention. Participants were asked to estimate the proportion represented in 6 unlabeled graphics, half randomly arranged and half sequentially arranged. Measurements. Estimated proportions. RESULTS: . Although average estimates were fairly good, the variability of estimates was high. Overestimates of random graphics were larger than overestimates of sequential ones, except when the proportion was near 50%; variability was also higher with random graphics. Although the average inaccuracy was modest, it was large enough that more than one quarter of respondents confused 2 graphics depicting proportions that differed by 11 percentage points. Low numeracy and educational level were associated with inaccuracy. Limitations. Participants estimated proportions but did not report perceived risk. CONCLUSIONS: . Randomly arranged arrays of stick figures should be used with care because viewers' ability to estimate the proportion in these graphics is so poor that moderate differences between risks may not be visible. In addition, random arrangements may create an initial impression that proportions, especially large ones, are larger than they are.
Authors: Thomas B Silverman; Gilad J Kuperman; Alejandro Vanegas; Margaret Sin; Jill Dimond; Katherine D Crew; Rita Kukafka Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2018-12-05
Authors: Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Holly O Witteman; Andrea Fuhrel-Forbis; Nicole L Exe; Valerie C Kahn; Mark Dickson Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2012-07-25 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Holly O Witteman; Andrea Fuhrel-Forbis; Harindra C Wijeysundera; Nicole Exe; Mark Dickson; Lisa Holtzman; Valerie C Kahn; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2014-03-18 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Lyndal J Trevena; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Adrian Edwards; Wolfgang Gaissmaier; Mirta Galesic; Paul K J Han; John King; Margaret L Lawson; Suzanne K Linder; Isaac Lipkus; Elissa Ozanne; Ellen Peters; Danielle Timmermans; Steven Woloshin Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2013-11-29 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Thomas B Silverman; Alejandro Vanegas; Awilda Marte; Jennie Mata; Margaret Sin; Juan Carlos Rodriguez Ramirez; Wei-Yann Tsai; Katherine D Crew; Rita Kukafka Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-08-13 Impact factor: 2.655