Literature DB >> 24354944

The effect of cognitive load on decision making with graphically displayed uncertainty information.

Pamela M Allen1, John A Edwards, Frank J Snyder, Kevin A Makinson, David M Hamby.   

Abstract

An experiment examined the ability of five graphical displays to communicate uncertainty information when end users were under cognitive load (i.e., remembering an eight-digit number). The extent to which people could accurately derive information from the graphs and the adequacy of decisions about optimal behaviors based on the graphs were assessed across eight scenarios in which probabilistic outcomes were described. Results indicated that the load manipulation did not have an overall effect on derivation of information from the graphs (i.e., mean and probability estimation) but did suppress the ability to optimize behavioral choices based on the graph. Cognitive load affected people's use of some graphical displays (basic probability distribution function) more than others. Overall, the research suggests that interpreting basic characteristics of uncertainty data is unharmed under conditions of limited cognitive resources, whereas more deliberative processing is negatively affected.
© 2013 Society for Risk Analysis.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cognitive busyness; decision making; graphical communication; probability; uncertainty

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24354944      PMCID: PMC4063894          DOI: 10.1111/risa.12161

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


  9 in total

Review 1.  The visual communication of risk.

Authors:  I M Lipkus; J G Hollands
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  1999

2.  Cognitive Load and the Equality Heuristic: A Two-Stage Model of Resource Overconsumption in Small Groups.

Authors: 
Journal:  Organ Behav Hum Decis Process       Date:  2000-11

3.  Uncertainty in transport factors used to calculate historical dose from 131I releases at the Savannah River Site.

Authors:  A A Simpkins; D M Hamby
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 1.316

Review 4.  Choosing specifiers: an evaluation of the basic tasks model of graphical perception.

Authors:  C M Carswell
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 2.888

5.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.

Authors:  A Tversky; D Kahneman
Journal:  Science       Date:  1974-09-27       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Uncertainty of the thyroid dose conversion factor for inhalation intakes of 131I and its parametric uncertainty.

Authors:  R P Harvey; D M Hamby; T S Palmer
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2006-01-12       Impact factor: 0.972

Review 7.  A review of contemporary methods for the presentation of scientific uncertainty.

Authors:  K A Makinson; D M Hamby; J A Edwards
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 1.316

8.  A probabilistic estimation of atmospheric tritium dose.

Authors:  D M Hamby
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 1.316

9.  Decision making for risk management: a comparison of graphical methods for presenting quantitative uncertainty.

Authors:  John A Edwards; Frank J Snyder; Pamela M Allen; Kevin A Makinson; David M Hamby
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2012-05-22       Impact factor: 4.000

  9 in total
  2 in total

1.  A cross-sectional survey of genetic counselors providing carrier screening regarding GBA variants and Parkinson disease susceptibility.

Authors:  Tara A Jones; Jeanine Schulze; Sharon Aufox; Jason Rothstein; Aishwarya Arjunan
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2022-02-11       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 2.  Optimizing assessors' mental workload in rater-based assessment: a critical narrative review.

Authors:  Bridget Paravattil; Kyle John Wilby
Journal:  Perspect Med Educ       Date:  2019-12
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.