The Influence of Uncertain Map Features on Risk Beliefs and Perceived Ambiguity for Maps of Modeled Cancer Risk from Air Pollution

Risk Analysis

Volumn 33, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 818-837

  Severtson, Dolores J ^a   Myers, Jeffrey D ^b  

^a University of Wisconsin Health   (United States)

^b WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES   (United States)

Author keywords

Map cognition; Risk communication; Uncertainty; Visual cognition

Indexed keywords

BOTTOM-UP AND TOP-DOWN; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS; FULL FACTORIAL EXPERIMENT; PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS; RISK COMMUNICATION; STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING; UNCERTAINTY; VISUAL COGNITION;

DATA PROCESSING;

AIR POLLUTION;

ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION; CANCER; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; MAP; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS; VISUAL ANALYSIS;

AIR POLLUTANT; ARTICLE; HUMAN; NEOPLASM; RISK ASSESSMENT; THEORETICAL MODEL; UNCERTAINTY;

AIR POLLUTANTS; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; NEOPLASMS; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 84877627173     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01893.x     Document Type: Article

References (93)

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Summary results for the 2005 national-scale assessment, 2011. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf, Accessed on September 20, 2011.
2. Wartenberg D. Some considerations for the communication of results of air pollution health effects tracking. Air Quality, Atmosphere, and Health, 2009; 2:207-221.
3. Severtson DJ, Vatovec C. The theory-based influence of map features on risk beliefs: Self-reports of what is seen and understood for maps depicting an environmental health hazard. Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives, 2012; 17(7):836-856.
4. MacEachren AM. Visualizing uncertain information. Cartographic Perspective, 1992; 13:10-19.
5. Bostrom A, Anselin L, Farris J. Visualizing seismic risk and uncertainty. A review of related research. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2008; 1128(1):29-40.
6. Harrower M, ed. Representing Uncertainty: Does it Help People Make Better Decisions? UCGIS Workshop: Geospatial Visualization and Knowledge Discovery Workshop, Landsdowne, VA, 2003. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf.
7. MacEachren AM, Robinson A, Hopper S, Gardner S, Murray R, Gahegan M, Hetzler E. Visualizing geospatial information uncertainty: What we know and what we need to know. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 2005; 32(3):139-160.
8. Pang AT, Wittenbrink CM, Lodha SK. Approaches to uncertainty visualization. Visual Computer, 1997; 13(8):370-390.
9. Han PKJ, Moser RP, Klein WMP. Perceived ambiguity about cancer prevention recommendations: Relationship to perceptions of cancer preventability, risk, and worry. Journal of Health Communication, 2006; 11:51-69.
10. Kim M-S, Hunter JE. Relationships among attitudes, behavioral intentions, and behavior. Communication Research, 1993; 20(3):331-364.
11. Sheeran P. Intention-behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. Pp. 1-36 in Stroebe W, Hewstone M (eds). Wiley & Sons; 2002.
12. Pinker S. A theory of graph comprehension. Pp. 73-126 in Freedle R (ed). Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Testing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1990.
13. Cleveland WS, McGill R. Graphical perception: Theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphical methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1984; 79(387):531-554.
14. Slocum TA, McMaster RB, Kessler FC, Howard HH. In Clarke KC (ed). Thematic Cartography and Geographic Visualization, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2009.
15. Harrower M. Unclassed animated choropleth maps. Cartographic Journal, 2007; 44(4):313-320.
16. Cromley RG. Classed versus unclassed maps: A question of how many classes. Cartographica, 1995; 32(4):15-27.
17. Mersey JE. Color and thematic map design: The role of color scheme and map complexity in choropleth map communication, Monograph 41. Cartographica, 1990; 27(3) 1-167.
18. Gilmartin P, Shelton E. Choropleth maps on high resolution CRTs: The effects of number of classes and hue on communication. Cartographica, 1989; 26(2):40-52.
19. Slocum TA, McMaster RB, Kessler FC, Howard HH. Choropleth mapping. Pp. 251-270 in Clarke KC (ed). Thematic Cartography and Geographic Visualization, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2009.
20. Chandler D. Semiotics: The Basics. London: Routledge, 2002.
21. Robinson AH, Sale RD, Morrison JL, Muehrcke PC. Elements of Cartography. New York: Wiley, 1984.
22. MacEachren AM. A Functional Approach to Map Representation. How Maps Work: Representation, Visualization, and Design, paperback ed. New York: Guilford Press; 1995, pp. 244-309.
23. Pang A. Visualizing uncertainty in geo-spatial data. Paper prepared for and presented to the Computer Science and Telecommunication Board, National Research Council, September 20, 2001, Washington, DC. Available at> ftp://ftp.cse.ucsc.edu/.zfs/snapshot/110901_monthly/pub/reinas/papers/geo.pdf, Accessed September 5, 2012.
24. Howard D, MacEachren AM. Interface design for geographic databases: Tools for representing reliability. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, 1996; 23(2):59-77.
25. Brewer CA. Basic mapping principles for visualizing cancer data using geographic information systems (GIS). American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2006; 30(2 Suppl. 1):S25-S36.
26. Brewer CA, Harrower M, Woodruff A, Heyman D. ColorBrewer 2.0. Pennsylvania State University and Axix Maps LLC, 2009. Available at: http://colorbrewer2.org/, Accessed on September 15, 2011.
27. Severtson DJ. Maps as risk communication: The influence of environmental hazard maps on risk beliefs, emotion and protective behavior. In review.
28. Severtson DJ, Burt JE. The influence of mapped hazards on risk beliefs: A proximity-based modeling approach. Risk Analysis, 2012; 32(2):259-280.
29. Weinstein ND, Sandman PM. Some criteria for evaluating risk messages. Risk Analysis, 1993; 13(1):103-114.
30. Lipkus IM. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: Suggested best practices and future recommendations. Medical Decision Making, 2007; 27(5):696-713.
31. Wallsten T, Budescu D, Zwick R, Kemp S. Preferences and reasons for communicating probabilistic information in verbal or numerical terms. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1993; 31:135-138.
32. Hoffrage U, Gigerenzer G, Krauss S, Martignon L. Representation facilitates reasoning: What natural frequencies are and what they are not. Cognition, 2002; 84(3):343-352.
33. Koehler J. The base rate fallacy reconsidered: Descriptive, normative and methodological challenges. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1996; 19(1):1-53.
34. Moxey LM, Sanford AJ. Communicating quantities: A review of psycholinguistic evidence of how expressions determine perspectives. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2000; 14(3):237-255.
35. Fox CR, Irwin JR. The role of context in the communication of uncertain beliefs. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1998; 20(1):57-70.
36. Knapp P, Raynor DK, Berry DC. Comparison of two methods of presenting risk information to patients about the side effects of medicines. BMJ Quality & Safety, 2004; 13(3):176-180.
37. Weinstein ND, Sandman PM, Miller P. Communicating Effectively About Risk Magnitudes: Phase Two. New Brunswick, NJ: Report to U.S. EPA from Environmental Communication Research Program, Cook College, Rutgers University, 1991. Report No.: EPA-230-09-91-003.
38. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Residual Risk Report to Congress. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1999. EPA-453/R-99-001.
39. Johnson BB. Communicating air quality information: Experimental evaluation of alternative formats. Risk Analysis, 2003; 23(1):91-103.
40. Weinstein ND, Sandman PM. Predicting homeowners' mitigation responses to radon test data. Journal of Social Issues, 1992; 48(4):63-83.
41. Johnson B. Public views on drinking water standards as risk indicators. Risk Analysis, 2008; 28(6):1515-1530.
42. Leventhal H, Brissette I, Leventhal E. The common-sense model of self-regulation of health and illness. Pp. 42-65 in Cameron LD, Leventhal H (eds). The Self-Regulation of Health and Illness Behavior. London: Routledge, 2003.
43. National Cancer Institute. Theory at a Glance: A Guide for Health Promotion Practice, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health, 2005.
44. Weinstein ND. The precaution adoption process. Health Psychology, 1988; 7:355-386.
45. Reyna VF, Brainerd CJ. Fuzzy-trace theory: An interim synthesis. Learning and Individual Differences, 1995; 7(1):1-75.
46. Reyna VF, Brainerd CJ. Fuzzy-trace theory: Some foundational issues. Learning and Individual Differences, 1995; 7(2):145-162.
47. Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N. Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 2001; 127(2):267-286.
48. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 2004; 24(2):311-322.
49. Rivers SE, Reyna VF, Mills B. Risk taking under the influence: A fuzzy-trace theory of emotion in adolescence. Developmental Review, 2008; 8(1):107-144.
50. Weinstein ND. Effects of personal experience on self-protective behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 1989; 105:31-50.
51. Camerer C, Weber M. Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1992; 5:325-370.
52. Griffin R, Dunwoody S, Neuwirth K. Proposed model of the relationship of risk information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors. Environmental Research, 1999; 80(2 Part 2):S230-S45.
53. Powell M, Dunwoody S, Griffin R, Neuwirth K. Exploring lay uncertainty about an environmental health risk. Public Understanding of Science, 2007; 16(3):323-343.
54. Viscusi WK, Magat WA, Huber J. Communication of ambiguous risk information. Theory and Decision, 1991; 31(2):159-173.
55. Cook MP. Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 2006; 90(6):1073-1091.
56. Verdi MP, Kulhavy RW. Learning with maps and text: An overview. Educational Psychology Review, 2002: 27-46.
57. Bickerstaff K, Walker G. Public understandings of air pollution: The localisation of environmental risk. Global Environmental Change, 2001; 11(2):133-145.
58. Brody SD, Peck BM, Highfield W. Examining localized patterns of air quality perception in Texas: A spatial and statistical analysis. Risk Analysis, 2004; 24(6):1561-1574.
59. Ditto PH, Lopez DF. Motivated skepticism: The use of differential decision criteria for preferred and non-preferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1992; 63:568-584.
60. Trumbo CW, McComas KA, Kannaovakun P. Cancer anxiety and the perception of risk in alarmed communities. Risk Analysis, 2007; 27(2):337-350.
61. Nelson W, Reyna VF, Fagerlin A, Lipkus I, Peters E. Clinical implications of numeracy: Theory and practice. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 2008; 35:261-274.
62. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Smith DM, Derry HA, McClure JB, Stark A, Pitsch RK, Fagerlin A. Communicating side effect risks in a tamoxifen prophylaxis decision aid: The debiasing influence of pictographs. Patient Education and Counseling, 2008; 73(2):209-214.
63. Peters E, Hibbard J, Slovic P, Dieckmann N. Numeracy skill and the communication, comprehension, and use of risk-benefit information. Health Affairs, 2007; 26(3):741-748.
64. Han PKJ, Moser RP, Klein WMP, Beckjord EB, Dunlavy AC, Hesse BW. Predictors of perceived ambiguity about cancer prevention recommendations: Sociodemographic factors and mass media exposures. Health Communication, 2009; 24(8):764-772.
65. Slovic P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 1999; 19(4):689-701.
66. Levy-Meyers J. Gender differences in cortical organization: Social and biochemical antecedents and advertising consequences. In Clark EM, Brock TC, Stewart DW (eds). Attention, Attitude, and Affect in Response to Advertising. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2004.
67. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Regional air impact modeling initiative air modeling preprocessor. Washington, DC: EPA, 2009.
68. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. User's guide to MOBILE6.1 and MOBILE6.2: Mobile Source Emission Factor Model. Washington, DC: EPA, 2003.
69. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. AERMOD: Latest Features and Evaluation Results. Washington, DC: EPA, 2003.
70. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. An Overview of Methods for EPA's National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment. Durham, NC: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 2011.
71. ICF International. An overview of methods for EPA's national-scale air toxics assessment. Durham, NC: ICF International, 2011. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/nata_tmd.pdf, Accessed September 6, 2012.
72. American Factfinder [database on the Internet]. U.S. Census Bureau, 2012. Available at: http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang003Den, Accessed on January 14, 2012.
73. Madison and Dane County Public Health. Air Quality (outdoor). City of Madison, 2012. Available at: http://www.publichealthmdc.com/environmental/air/outdoor.cfm. Accessed on January 2, 2012.
74. 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.
75. 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.
76. SPSS Inc. PASW for Windows, 18.0 ed. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc., 2009.
77. Muthen LK, Muthen B, O. Mplus, 4.21 ed. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen, 2007.
78. Tabachnick BGFLS. Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001.
79. Tversky B, Kugelmass S, Winter A. Cross-cultural and developmental trends in graphic productions. Cognitive Psychology, 1991; 23:515-557.
80. Johnson BB, Slovic P. Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: Initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust. Risk Analysis, 1995; 15(4):485-494.
81. Viscusi WK, Magat WA, Huber J. Smoking status and public responses to ambiguous scientific risk evidence. Southern Economic Journal, 1999; 66(2):250-270.
82. Klein WMP, Stefanek ME. Cancer risk elicitation and communication: Lessons from the psychology of risk perception. CA Cancer J Clin, 2007; 57(3):147-167.
83. Zarcadoolas C, Pleasant A, Greer DS. Understanding health literacy: An expanded model. Health Promotion International, 2005; 20(2):195-203.
84. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Open Government. Washington, DC, 2012. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/open/, Accessed on May 5, 2012.
85. U.S. White House. Open Government Initiative. Washington, DC, 2012. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/open, Accessed on May 5, 2012.
86. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Community Action for Environmental Public Health. Washington, DC, 2012. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/communityhealth/index.html, Accessed on May 5, 2012.
87. Dietz T, Stern PC, eds. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: National Research Council of the National Academies, 2008.
88. Frisch D, Baron J. Ambiguity and rationality. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1988; 1(3):149-157.
89. Robinson AH, Petchenik BB. The Nature of Maps. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.
90. Slocum TA, McMaster RB, Kessler FC, Howard HH. Isarithmic mapping. Pp. 281-301 in Thematic Cartography and Geographic Visualization, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2009.
91. Slocum TA, McMaster RB, Kessler FC, Howard HH. Glossary. Pp. 501-518 in Clarke KC (ed). Thematic Cartography and Geographic Visualization, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2009.
92. Muthen LK, Muthen B, O. Mplus Discussion. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen, 2007-2011. Available at: http://www.statmodel.com/discussion/messages/11/2156.html?1317086403, Accessed on August 31, 2011.
93. Rubio DM, Gillespie DF. Problems with error in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 1995; 2(4):367-378.