Decisive evidence on a smaller-than-you-think phenomenon: Revisiting the "1-in-X" effect on subjective medical probabilities

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 419-429

  Sirota, Miroslav ^a   Juanchich, Marie ^b   Kostopoulou, Olga ^a   Hanak, Robert ^c  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b KINGSTON UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS IN BRATISLAVA   (Slovakia)

Author keywords

"1 in X" effect; Bayes factor meta analysis; meta analysis; probability perception; subjective probability

Indexed keywords

BAYES THEOREM; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; META ANALYSIS; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

BAYES THEOREM; COMMUNICATION; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84899583240     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X13514776     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981 ; 211 (4481). 453-58
2. Pighin S, Savadori L, Barilli E, Cremonesi L, Ferrari M, Bonnefon JF. The 1-in-X effect on the subjective assessment of medical probabilities. Med Decis Making. 2011 ; 31 (5). 721-29
3. Zikmund-Fisher BJ. Time to retire the 1-in-X risk format. Med Decis Making. 2011 ; 31 (5). 703-4
4. Yamaguchi S. Biased risk perceptions among Japanese: illusion of interdependence among risk companions. Asian J Soc Psychol. 1998 ; 1 (2). 117-31
5. Miller DT, Turnbull W, McFarland C. When a coincidence is suspicious - the role of mental simulation. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1989 ; 57 (4). 581-89
6. Price PC, Matthews TV. From group diffusion to ratio bias: effects of denominator and numerator salience on intuitive risk and likelihood judgments. Judgm Decis Mak. 2009 ; 4 (6). 436-46
7. Bonner C, Newell BR. How to make a risk seem riskier: the ratio bias versus construal level theory. Judgm Decis Mak. 2008 ; 3 (5). 411-16
8. Denes-Raj V, Epstein S. Conflict between intuitive and rational processing - when people behave against their better judgment. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994 ; 66 (5). 819-29
9. Kirkpatrick LA, Epstein S. Cognitive experiential self-theory and subjective-probability - further evidence for 2 conceptual systems. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1992 ; 63 (4). 534-44
10. Hsee CK. The evaluability hypothesis: an explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1996 ; 67 (3). 247-57
11. Bakker M, van Dijk A, Wicherts JM. The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012 ; 7 (6). 543-54
12. Francis G. Publication bias and the failure of replication in experimental psychology. Psychon Bull Rev. 2012 ; 19 (6). 975-91
13. Cumming G London: Routledge ; 2012 :
14. Rouder J, Morey R. A Bayes factor meta-analysis of Bem's ESP claim. Psychon Bull Rev. 2011 ; 18 (4). 682-89
15. Gigerenzer G Subjective Probability. Wright G Ayton P, ed. Chichester (UK): Wiley ; 1994: 129-61.
16. Cohen J 2 nd ed. ed. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum ; 1988 :
17. Liberali JM, Reyna VF, Furlan S, Stein LM, Pardo ST. Individual differences in numeracy and cognitive reflection, with implications for biases and fallacies in probability judgment. J Behav Decis Mak. 2012 ; 25 (4). 361-81
18. Peters E. Beyond comprehension: the role of numeracy in judgments and decisions. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2012 ; 21 (1). 31-35
19. Reyna VF, Brainerd CJ. The importance of mathematics in health and human judgment: numeracy, risk communication, and medical decision making. Learn Individ Differ. 2007 ; 17 (2). 147-59
20. Reyna VF, Nelson WL, Han PK, Dieckmann NF. How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychol Bull. 2009 ; 135 (6). 943-73
21. Sirota M, Juanchich M. Role of numeracy and cognitive reflection in Bayesian reasoning with natural frequencies. Stud Psychol. 2011 ; 53 (2). 151-61
22. Peters E, Vastfjall D, Slovic P, Mertz CK, Mazzocco K, Dickert S. Numeracy and decision making. Psychol Sci. 2006 ; 17 (5). 407-13
23. Bonner C, Newell BR. In conflict with ourselves? An investigation of heuristic and analytic processes in decision making. Mem Cognit. 2010 ; 38 (2). 186-96
24. Reyna VF, Brainerd CJ. Numeracy, ratio bias, and denominator neglect in judgments of risk and probability. Learn Individ Differ. 2008 ; 18 (1). 89-107
25. Frederick S. Cognitive reflection and decision making. J Econ Perspect. 2005 ; 19 (4). 25-42
26. Toplak ME, West RF, Stanovich KE. The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks. Mem Cognit. 2011 ; 39 (7). 1275-89
27. Sirota M, Juanchich M, Hagmayer Y. Ecological rationality or nested sets? Individual differences in cognitive processing predict Bayesian reasoning. Psychon Bull Rev. 2013 ;:
28. Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer BK. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making. 2001 ; 21 (1). 37-44
29. Sirota M, Juanchich M. To what extent do politeness expectations shape risk perception?. Even numerical probabilities are under their spell! Acta Psychol. 2012 ; 141 (3). 391-99
30. Yamaguchi S, Gelfand M, Ohashi MM, Zemba Y. The cultural psychology of control - illusions of personal versus collective control in the United States and Japan. J Cross Cult Psychol. 2005 ; 36 (6). 750-61
31. Pighin S, Savadori L, Barilli E, et al. Using comparison scenarios to improve prenatal risk communication. Med Decis Making. 2013 ; 33 (1). 48-58
32. Rouder JN, Speckman PL, Sun D, Morey RD, Iverson G. Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychon Bull Rev. 2009 ; 16 (2). 225-37
33. Goodman SN. Toward evidence-based medical statistics, 2: the Bayes factor. Ann Intern Med. 1999 ; 130 (12). 1005-13
34. Wagenmakers E-J, Wetzels R, Borsboom D, van der Maas HL. Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: the case of psi: comment on Bem (2011). J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011 ; 100 (3). 426-32
35. Jeffreys H Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press ; 1961 :
36. Wetzels R, Matzke D, Lee MD, Rouder JN, Iverson GJ, Wagenmakers E-J. Statistical evidence in experimental psychology: an empirical comparison using 855 t-tests. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011 ; 6 (3). 291-98
37. Vienna (Austria): R Foundation for Statistical Computing ; 2011 :
38. Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw. 2010 ; 36: 1-48
39. Barhillel M, Budescu DV. The elusive wishful thinking effect. Bull Psychon Soc. 1992 ; 30 (6). 471-71
40. SchoolerJ. Unpublished results hide the decline effect. Nature. 2011;470(7335):437-37.
41. Eysenbach G. Consumer health informatics. BMJ. 2000 ; 320 (7251). 1713-16
42. Sirota M, Juanchich M. Risk communication on shaky ground. Science. 2012 ; 338 (6112). 1286-87