Foreground:background salience: Explaining the effects of graphical displays on risk avoidance

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

Volumn 90, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 19-36

  Stone, Eric R ^a   Sieck, Winston R ^b   Bull, Benita E ^a   Yates, J Frank ^b   Parks, Stephanie C ^a   Rush, Carolyn J ^a  

^a WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0038734030     PISSN: 07495978     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00003-7     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Baron, J. (1997). Confusion of relative and absolute risk in valuation. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14, 301-309.
2. Brown, L. J., Oliver, R. C., & Loe, H. (1990). Evaluating periodontal status of US employed adults. Journal of the American Dental Association, 121, 226-232.
3. Camerer, C. F., & Kunreuther, H. (1989). Decision processes for low probability events: Policy implications. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 8, 565-592.
4. Covello, V. T., Sandman, P. M., & Slovic, P. (1988). Risk communication, risk statistics, and risk comparisons: A manual for plant managers. Washington, DC: Chemical Manufacturers Association.
5. Covello, V. T., von Winterfeldt, D., & Slovic, P. (1986). Risk communication: A review of the literature. Risk Abstracts, 3, 171-182.
6. Fischhoff, B. (1995). Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process. Risk Analysis, 15, 137-145.
7. Fisher, A. (1991). Risk communication challenges. Risk Analysis, 11, 173-179.
8. Fisher, A., McClelland, G. H., & Schulze, W. D. (1989). Communicating risk under Title III of SARA: Strategies for explaining very small risks in a community context. Journal of Air Pollution Control Association, 39, 271-276.
9. Gordis, L. (1996). Epidemiology. St. Louis: W.B. Saunders.
10. Halpern, D. F., Blackman, S., & Salzman, B. (1989). Using statistical risk information to assess oral contraceptive safety. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 3, 251-260.
11. Howell, D. C. (1992). Statistical methods for psychology. Boston: PWS-Kent.
12. Hsee, C. K. (1996). The evaluability hypothesis: an explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 247-257.
13. Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1990). Graphic displays in decision making-the visual salience effect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 3, 247-262.
14. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
15. Keeney, R. L., & von Winterfeldt, D. (1986). Improving risk communication. Risk Analysis, 6, 417-424.
16. Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 149-188.
17. Lipkus, I. M., & Hollands, J. (2000). The visual communication of risk. Monographs of the National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.
18. Magat, W. A., Viscusi, W. K., & Huber, J. (1987). Risk-dollar tradeoffs, risk perceptions, and consumer behavior. In W. K. Viscusi, & W. A. Magat (Eds.), Learning about risk (pp. 83-97). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19. Palinkas, L. A., & Hoiberg, A. (1982). An epidemiology primer: Bridging the gap between epidemiology and psychology. Health Psychology, 1, 269-287.
20. Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (1991). Fuzzy-trace theory and framing effects in choice: Gist extraction, truncation, and conversion. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4, 249-262.
21. Rohrmann, B. (1992). The evaluation of risk communication effectiveness. Acta Psychologica, 81, 169-192.
22. Roth, E., Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Lave, L., & Bostrom, A. (1990). What do we know about making risk comparisons? Risk Analysis, 10, 375-387.
23. Sanfrey, A., & Hastie, R. (1998). Does evidence presentation format affect judgment? An experimental evaluation of displays of data for judgments. Psychological Science, 9, 99-103.
24. Siegrist, M. (1997). Communicating low risk magnitudes: incidence rates expressed as frequency versus rates expressed as probability. Risk Analysis, 17, 507-510.
25. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1978). Accident probabilities and seat belt usage: A psychological perspective. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 10, 281-285.
26. Stone, E. R., Rush, C. J. (1997, November). Risk communication: The effectiveness of graphical modes depends on the risk magnitude. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Judgment and Decision Making, Philadelphia, PA.
27. Stone, E. R., Yates, J. F., & Parker, A. M. (1994). Risk communication: Absolute versus relative expressions of low-probability risks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60, 387-408.
28. Stone, E. R., Yates, J. F., & Parker, A. M. (1997). Effects of numerical and graphical displays on professed risk-taking behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 243-256.
29. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.
30. Viscusi, W. K., & Magat, W. A. (1987). Learning about risk. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31. Weinstein, N. D., Kolb, K., & Goldstein, B. D. (1996). Using time intervals between expected events to communicate risk magnitudes. Risk Analysis, 16, 305-308.
32. Yamagishi, K. (1997). When a 12.86% mortality is more dangerous than 24.14%: Implications for risk communication. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 495-506.