Using a Familiar Risk Comparison Within a Risk Ladder to Improve Risk Understanding by Low Numerates: A Study of Visual Attention

Risk Analysis

Volumn 31, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 1043-1054

  Keller, Carmen ^a  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Eye tracker; Familiar risk comparison; Information processing; Numeracy; Risk communication; Visual attention

Indexed keywords

EYE TRACKERS; FAMILIAR RISK; NUMERACY; RISK COMMUNICATION; VISUAL ATTENTION;

DATA PROCESSING; EFFICIENCY; EYE CONTROLLED DEVICES; STATISTICS;

LADDERS;

RADON;

DATA PROCESSING; NUMERICAL MODEL; RESEARCH WORK; RISK FACTOR; TRACKING; VISUAL ANALYSIS;

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COMPREHENSION; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; EYE FIXATION; EYE MOVEMENT; FEMALE; HEALTH EDUCATION; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PERCEPTION; PHYSIOLOGY; RISK; RISK ASSESSMENT; SMOKING;

ADULT; ATTENTION; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COMMUNICATION; COMPREHENSION; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; EYE MOVEMENTS; FEMALE; FIXATION, OCULAR; HEALTH EDUCATION; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; MALE; PERCEPTION; RADON; RISK; RISK ASSESSMENT; SMOKING;

EID: 79959599084     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01577.x     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Jankovic A, Derry HA, Smith DM. Measuring numeracy without a math test: Development of the subjective numeracy scale. Medical Decision Making, 2007; 27(5):672-680.
2. Lipkus IS, Samsa G, Rimer BK. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Medical Decision Making, 2001; 21(1):37-44.
3. Peters E. Numeracy and the perception and communication of risk. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2008; 1128:1-7.
4. Peters E, Västfjäll D, Slovic P, Mertz CK, Mazzocco K, Dickert S. Numeracy and decision making. Psychological Science, 2006; 17(5):407-413.
5. Black WC, Nease RF, Tosteson ANA. Perceptions of breast cancer risk and screening effectiveness in women younger than 50 years of age. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1995; 87(10):720-731.
6. Schapira MM, Davids SL, McAuliffe TL, Nattinger AB. Agreement between scales in the measurement of breast cancer risk perceptions. Risk Analysis, 2004; 24(3):665-673.
7. Keller C, Siegrist M. Effect of risk communication formats on risk perception depending on numeracy. Medical Decision Making, 2009; 29(4):483-490.
8. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Smith DM, Ubel PA, Fagerlin A. Validation of the subjective numeracy scale: Effects of low numeracy on comprehension of risk communications and utility elicitations. Medical Decision Making, 2007; 27(5):663-671.
9. Lipkus IS. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: Suggested best practices and future recommendations. Medical Decision Making, 2007; 27(5):696-713.
10. Ancker JS, Senathirajah Y, Kukafka R, Starren JB. Design features of graphs in health risk communication: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2006; 13(6):608-618.
11. Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R, Gigerenzer G. Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: Overcoming low numeracy. Health Psychology, 2009; 28(2):210-216.
12. Peters E, Dieckmann N, Dixon A, Hibbard J, Mertz CK. Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers. Medical Care Research and Review, 2007; 64(2):169-190.
13. Peters E, Dieckmann NF, Mertz CK, Vastfjall D, Slovic P, Hibbard JH. Bringing meaning to numbers: The impact of evaluative categories on decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied, 2009; 15(3):213-227.
14. Keller C, Siegrist M, Visschers V. Effect of risk ladder format on risk perception in high- and low-numerate individuals. Risk Analysis, 2009; 29(9):1255-1264.
15. Peters E, Levin IP. Dissecting the risky-choice framing effect: Numeracy as an individual-difference factor in weighting risky and riskless options. Judgment and Decision Making Journal, 2008; 3(8):435-448.
16. Hsee CK. The evaluability hypotheses: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1996; 67(3):247-257.
17. Paling JE. Strategies to help patients understand risks. British Medical Journal, 2003; 327(7417):745-748.
18. Stallings SP, Paling JE. New tool for presenting risk in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2001; 98(2):345-349.
19. Siegrist M, Orlow P, Keller C. The effect of graphical and numerical risk presentation of hypothetical prenatal diagnosis results on risk perception. Medical Decision Making, 2008; 28(4):567-574.
20. Siegrist M, Keller C. Natural frequencies and Bayesian reasoning: The impact of formal education and context of problem. Under review.
21. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 1978; 9(2):127-152.
22. Siegrist M, Keller C, Kiers AL. A new look at the psychometric paradigm of perception of hazards. Risk Analysis, 2005; 25(1):211-222.
23. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science, 1987; 236(4799):280-285.
24. Morewedge CK, Kassam KS, Hsee CK, Caruso EM. Duration sensitivity depends on stimulus familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General, 2009; 138(2):177-186.
25. Pieters R, Warlop L. Visual attention during brand choice: The impact of time pressure and task motivation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 1999; 16(1):1-16.
26. Wedel M, Pieters R (eds). Visual Marketing: From Attention to Action. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2008.
27. Horstmann N, Ahlgrimm A, Glöckner A. How distinct are intuition and deliberation? An eye-tracking analysis of instruction-induced decision modes. Judgment and Decision Making, 2009; 4(5):335-354.
28. Velichkovsky BM. From levels of processing to stratification of cognition: Converging evidence from three domains of research. Pp. 203-235 in Challis BH, Velichkovsky BM (eds). Stratification in Cognition and Consciousness. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1999.
29. Hess R, Visschers V, Siegrist M, Keller C. How do people perceive graphical risk communication? The role of subjective numeracy. Journal of Risk Research, 2011; 14(1): 47-61.
30. Rayner K. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 1998; 124(3):372-422.
31. Goldberg JH, Kotval XP. Computer interface evaluation using eye movements: Methods and constructs. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 1999; 24(6):631-645.
32. Visschers V, Hess R, Siegrist M. Health motivation and product design determine consumers' visual attention to nutrition information on food products. Public Health Nutrition, 2010; 13(7):1099-1096.
33. Poortinga W, Cox P, Pidgeon NF. The perceived health risk of indoor radon gas and overhead powerlines: A comparative multilevel approach. Risk Analysis, 2008; 28(1):235-248.
34. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall, 1993.