The effect of different graphical and numerical likelihood formats on perception of likelihood and choice

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 487-500

  Oudhoff, Jurriaan P ^a   Timmermans, Daniëlle R M ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

choice; graphical risk formats; numerical risk formats; risk communication; risk perception

Indexed keywords

ADULT; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; FEMALE; GAMBLING; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MALE; NETHERLANDS; PERCEPTION; PROBABILITY; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL MODEL; STUDENT; UNIVERSITY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COMMUNICATION; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; GAMBLING; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MALE; NETHERLANDS; PERCEPTION; PROBABILITY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; STUDENTS; UNIVERSITIES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84928984745     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X15576487     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Edwards AGK, Naik G, Ahmed H, et al. Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 ; (2). CD001865
2. Schapira MM, Nattinger AB, McHorney CA. Frequency or probability? A qualitative study of risk communication formats used in health care. Med Decis Making. 2001 ; 21 (6). 459-67
3. Timmermans D, Molewijk B, Stiggelbout A, Kievit J. Different formats for communicating surgical risks to patients and the effect on choice of treatment. Patient Educ Couns. 2004 ; 54 (3). 255-63
4. Timmermans D, Oudhoff J Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science. Cochran J, ed. John Wiley & Sons ; 2010 :
5. Visschers VH, Meertens RM, Passchier WW, de Vries NN. Probability information in risk communication: a review of the research literature. Risk Anal. 2009 ; 29 (2). 267-87
6. Hoffrage U, Gigerenzer G, Krauss S, Martignon L. Representation facilitates reasoning: what natural frequencies are and what they are not. Cognition. 2002 ; 84 (3). 343-52
7. Gigerenzer G, Hoffrage U. How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction - frequency formats. Psychol Rev. 1995 ; 102 (4). 684-704
8. Evans JSBT, Handley SJ, Perham N, Over DE, Thompson VA. Frequency versus probability formats in statistical word problems. Cognition. 2000 ; 77 (3). 197-213
9. Neace WP, Michaud S, Bolling L, Deer K, Zecevic L. Frequency formats, probability formats, or problem structure? A test of the nested-sets hypothesis in an extensional reasoning task. Judgm Decis Mak. 2008 ; 3 (2). 140-52
10. Gigerenzer G, Edwards A. Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. BMJ. 2003 ; 327 (7417). 741-4
11. Slovic P, Monahan J, MacGregor DG. Violence risk assessment and risk communication: the effects of using actual cases, providing instruction, and employing probability versus frequency formats. Law Hum Behav. 2000 ; 24 (3). 271-96
12. Stone ER, Sieck WR, Bull BE, Yates JF, Parks SC, Rush CJ. Foreground: background salience: explaining the effects of graphical displays on risk avoidance. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2003 ; 90 (1). 19-36
13. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Smith DM, et al. Communicating side effect risks in a tamoxifen prophylaxis decision aid: the debiasing influence of pictographs. Patient Educ Couns. 2008 ; 73 (2). 209-14
14. Slovic P, Finucane M, Peters E, MacGregor DG Heuristic and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press ; 2002: 397-420.
15. Peters E, Hart P, Fraenkel L. Informing patients: the influence of numeracy, framing, and format of side effect information on risk perceptions. Med Decis Making. 2011 ; 31 (3). 432-6
16. Goodyear-Smith F, Arroll B, Chan L, Jackson R, Wells S, Kenealy T. Patients prefer pictures to numbers to express cardiovascular benefit from treatment. Ann Fam Med. 2008 ; 6 (3). 213-7
17. Knapp P, Gardner P, Carrigan N, Raynor D, Woolf E. Perceived risk of medicine side effects in users of a patient information website: a study of the use of verbal descriptors, percentages and natural frequencies. Br J Health Psychol. 2009 ; 14: 579-94
18. Timmermans DR, Ockhuysen-Vermey CF, Henneman L. Presenting health risk information in different formats: the effect on participants' cognitive and emotional evaluation and decisions. Patient Educ Couns. 2008 ; 73 (3). 443-7
19. Denesraj V, Epstein S, Cole J. The generality of the ratio-bias phenomenon. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1995 ; 21 (10). 1083-92
20. Pacini R, Epstein S. The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999 ; 76 (6). 972-87
21. Yamagishi K. When a 12.86% mortality is more dangerous than 24.14%: implications for risk communication. Appl Cogn Psychol. 1997 ; 11 (6). 495-506
22. 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). 721-9
23. Sirota M, Juanchich M, Kostopoulou O, Hanak R. Decisive evidence on a smaller-than-you-think phenomenon: revisiting the "1-in-X" effect on subjective medical probabilities. Med Decis Making. 2014 ; 34: 419-29
24. Lipkus IM, Hollands JG. The visual communication of risk. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999 ; (25). 149-63
25. Lipkus IM. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risk: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making. 2007 ; 27 (5). 696-713
26. Waters EA, Weinstein ND, Colditz GA, Emmons K. Formats for improving risk communication in medical tradeoff decisions. J Health Commun. 2006 ; 11 (2). 167-82
27. Feldman-Stewart D, Brundage MD, Zotov V. Further insight into the perception of quantitative information: judgments of gist in treatment decisions. Med Decis Making. 2007 ; 27 (1). 34-43
28. Waters EA, Weinstein ND, Colditz GA, Emmons KM. Aversion to side effects in preventive medical treatment decisions. Br J Health Psychol. 2007 ; 12: 383-401
29. Brase GL. Pictorial representations in statistical reasoning. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2009 ; 23 (3). 369-81
30. Tait AR, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Voepel-Lewis T. Effect of various risk/benefit trade-offs on parents' understanding of a pediatric research study. Pediatrics. 2010 ; 125 (6). E1475 - E1482
31. Keller C, Siegrist M. Effect of risk communication formats on risk perception depending on numeracy. Med Decis Making. 2009 ; 29 (4). 483-90
32. Nelson W, Reyna VF, Fagerlin A, Lipkus I, Peters E. Clinical implications of numeracy: theory and practice. Ann Behav Med. 2008 ; 35 (3). 261-74
33. Hess R, Visschers VH, Siegrist M. Risk communication with pictographs: the role of numeracy and graph processing. Judgm Decis Mak. 2011 ; 6 (3). 263-74
34. Peters E. Numeracy and the perception and communication of risk. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008 ; 1128: 1-7
35. Reyna VF, Brainerd CJ. Numeracy, ratio bias, and denominator neglect in judgments of risk and probability. Learn Individ Differ. 2008 ; 18 (1). 89-107
36. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch HG. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 1997 ; 127 (11). 966-72
37. Siegrist M, Orlow P, Keller C. The effect of graphical and numerical presentation of hypothetical prenatal diagnosis results on risk perception. Med Decis Making. 2008 ; 28 (4). 567-74
38. Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R, Gigerenzer G. Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: overcoming low numeracy. Health Psychol. 2009 ; 28 (2). 210-6
39. Schapira MM, Nattinger AB, McAuliffe TL. The influence of graphic format on breast cancer risk communication. J Health Commun. 2006 ; 11 (6). 569-82
40. Chua HF, Yates JF, Shah P. Risk avoidance: graphs versus numbers. Memory Cogn. 2006 ; 34 (2). 399-410
41. Sheridan SL, Pignone M. Numeracy and the medical student's ability to interpret data. Eff Clin Pract. 2002 ; 5 (1). 35-40
42. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM. Communicating data about the benefits and harms of treatment a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2011 ; 155 (2). 87 - U70
43. Brase GL. Which statistical formats facilitate what decisions? The perception and influence of different statistical information formats. J Behav Decis Making. 2002 ; 15 (5). 381-401
44. Abramsky L, Fletcher O. Interpreting information: what is said, what is heard - a questionnaire study of health professionals and members of the public. Prenat Diagn. 2002 ; 22 (13). 1188-94
45. Fair AK, I, Murray PG, Thomas A, Cobain MR. Using hypothetical data to assess the effect of numerical format and context on the perception of coronary heart disease risk. Am J Health Promot. 2008 ; 22 (4). 291-6
46. Zikmund-Fisher BJ. Time to retire the 1-in-X risk format. Med Decis Making. 2011 ; 31 (5). 703-4
47. Demeyere N, Humphreys GW. Immediate small number perception: evidence from a new numerical carry-over procedure. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2012 ; 38 (1). 18-22
48. Dehaene S, Mehler J. Cross-linguistic regularities in the frequency of number words. Cognition. 1992 ; 43: 1-29
49. Wang XT. Domain-specific rationality in human choices: violations of utility axioms and social contexts. Cognition. 1996 ; 60 (1). 31-63
50. Cuite CL, Weinstein ND, Emmons K, Colditz G. A test of numeric formats for communicating risk probabilities. Med Decis Making. 2008 ; 28 (3). 377-84
51. Ancker JS, Senathirajah Y, Kukafka R, Starren JB. Design features of graphs in health risk communication: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006 ; 13 (6). 608-18
52. Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M. Who profits from visual aids: overcoming challenges in people's understanding of risks. Soc Sci Med. 2010 ; 70 (7). 1019-25
53. Fagerlin A, Wang C, Ubel PA. Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people's health care decisions: is a picture worth a thousand statistics?. Med Decis Making. 2005 ; 25 (4). 398-405
54. Wong ST, Perez-Stable EJ, Kim SE, et al. Using visual displays to communicate risk of cancer to women from diverse race/ethnic backgrounds. Patient Educ Couns. 2012 ; 87 (3). 327-35
55. Royak-Schaler R, Blocker DE, Yali AM, Bynoe M, Briant KJ, Smith S. Breast and colorectal cancer risk communication approaches with low-income African-American and Hispanic women: implications for healthcare providers. J Natl Med Assoc. 2004 ; 96 (5). 598-608
56. Elting LS, Martin CG, Cantor SB, Rubenstein EB. Influence of data display formats on physician investigators' decisions to stop clinical trials: prospective trial with repeated measures. BMJ. 1999 ; 318 (7197). 1527-31