IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v38y2018i5p929-946.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Designing Graphs that Promote Both Risk Understanding and Behavior Change

Author

Listed:
  • Yasmina Okan
  • Eric R. Stone
  • Wändi Bruine de Bruin

Abstract

Graphs show promise for improving communications about different types of risks, including health risks, financial risks, and climate risks. However, graph designs that are effective at meeting one important risk communication goal (promoting risk‐avoidant behaviors) can at the same time compromise another key goal (improving risk understanding). We developed and tested simple bar graphs aimed at accomplishing these two goals simultaneously. We manipulated two design features in graphs, namely, whether graphs depicted the number of people affected by a risk and those at risk of harm (“foreground+background”) versus only those affected (“foreground‐only”), and the presence versus absence of simple numerical labels above bars. Foreground‐only displays were associated with larger risk perceptions and risk‐avoidant behavior (i.e., willingness to take a drug for heart attack prevention) than foreground+background displays, regardless of the presence of labels. Foreground‐only graphs also hindered risk understanding when labels were not present. However, the presence of labels significantly improved understanding, eliminating the detrimental effect of foreground‐only displays. Labels also led to more positive user evaluations of the graphs, but did not affect risk‐avoidant behavior. Using process modeling we identified mediators (risk perceptions, understanding, user evaluations) that explained the effect of display type on risk‐avoidant behavior. Our findings contribute new evidence to the graph design literature: unlike what was previously feared, we demonstrate that it is possible to design foreground‐only graphs that promote intentions for behavior change without a detrimental effect on risk understanding. Implications for the design of graphical risk communications and decision support are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Yasmina Okan & Eric R. Stone & Wändi Bruine de Bruin, 2018. "Designing Graphs that Promote Both Risk Understanding and Behavior Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 929-946, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:38:y:2018:i:5:p:929-946
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12895
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12895
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12895?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Valerie F. Reyna, 2008. "A Theory of Medical Decision Making and Health: Fuzzy Trace Theory," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(6), pages 850-865, November.
    2. Rajagopal, 2014. "The Human Factors," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Architecting Enterprise, chapter 9, pages 225-249, Palgrave Macmillan.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:1:p:83-89 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Eric R. Stone & Jacqueline MacDonald Gibson & Paul S. Fischbeck & Mohammad Baradaran Shoraka, 2013. "The effect of communication design and recipients' numeracy on responses to UXO risk," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(8), pages 981-1004, September.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:5:p:411-419 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Eric R. Stone & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Abigail M. Wilkins & Emily M. Boker & Jacqueline MacDonald Gibson, 2017. "Designing Graphs to Communicate Risks: Understanding How the Choice of Graphical Format Influences Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 612-628, April.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:3:p:150-158 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Cara L. Cuite & Neil D. Weinstein & Karen Emmons & Graham Colditz, 2008. "A Test of Numeric Formats for Communicating Risk Probabilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(3), pages 377-384, May.
    9. Isaac M. Lipkus & Greg Samsa & Barbara K. Rimer, 2001. "General Performance on a Numeracy Scale among Highly Educated Samples," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 37-44, February.
    10. Priya Raghubir & Sanjiv R. Das, 2010. "The Long and Short of It: Why Are Stocks with Shorter Runs Preferred?," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 36(6), pages 964-982, April.
    11. Nathan F. Dieckmann & Paul Slovic & Ellen M. Peters, 2009. "The Use of Narrative Evidence and Explicit Likelihood by Decisionmakers Varying in Numeracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(10), pages 1473-1488, October.
    12. James A. Schirillo & Eric R. Stone, 2005. "The Greater Ability of Graphical Versus Numerical Displays to Increase Risk Avoidance Involves a Common Mechanism," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 555-566, June.
    13. Garcia-Retamero, Rocio & Galesic, Mirta, 2010. "Who proficts from visual aids: Overcoming challenges in people's understanding of risks," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1019-1025, April.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:1:p:25-47 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Isaac M. Lipkus & Ellen Peters & Gretchen Kimmick & Vlayka Liotcheva & Paul Marcom, 2010. "Breast Cancer Patients’ Treatment Expectations after Exposure to the Decision Aid Program Adjuvant Online: The Influence of Numeracy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(4), pages 464-473, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yasmina Okan & Eric R. Stone & Jonathan Parillo & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Andrew M. Parker, 2020. "Probability Size Matters: The Effect of Foreground‐Only versus Foreground+Background Graphs on Risk Aversion Diminishes with Larger Probabilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 771-788, April.
    2. Lyndal J. Trevena & Carissa Bonner & Yasmina Okan & Ellen Peters & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Paul K. J. Han & Elissa Ozanne & Danielle Timmermans & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2021. "Current Challenges When Using Numbers in Patient Decision Aids: Advanced Concepts," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 834-847, October.
    3. Jimin Pyo & Michael G. Maxfield, 2021. "Cognitive Effects of Inattentive Responding in an MTurk Sample," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 2020-2039, July.
    4. Karin Eberhard, 2023. "The effects of visualization on judgment and decision-making: a systematic literature review," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 73(1), pages 167-214, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yasmina Okan & Eric R. Stone & Jonathan Parillo & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Andrew M. Parker, 2020. "Probability Size Matters: The Effect of Foreground‐Only versus Foreground+Background Graphs on Risk Aversion Diminishes with Larger Probabilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 771-788, April.
    2. Eric R. Stone & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Abigail M. Wilkins & Emily M. Boker & Jacqueline MacDonald Gibson, 2017. "Designing Graphs to Communicate Risks: Understanding How the Choice of Graphical Format Influences Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 612-628, April.
    3. William J. Burns & Ellen Peters & Paul Slovic, 2012. "Risk Perception and the Economic Crisis: A Longitudinal Study of the Trajectory of Perceived Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 659-677, April.
    4. Ian G. J. Dawson & Johnnie E. V. Johnson & Michelle A. Luke, 2013. "Helping Individuals to Understand Synergistic Risks: An Assessment of Message Contents Depicting Mechanistic and Probabilistic Concepts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(5), pages 851-865, May.
    5. Suk, Kwanho & Hwang, Sanyoung & Jeong, Yunjoo, 2022. "The 1-in-X effect in perceptions of risk likelihood differences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    6. Yaniv Hanoch & Jonathan Rolison & Alexandra M. Freund, 2019. "Reaping the Benefits and Avoiding the Risks: Unrealistic Optimism in the Health Domain," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 792-804, April.
    7. Talya Miron-Shatz & Yaniv Hanoch & Benjamin A. Katz & Glen M. Doniger & Elissa M. Ozanne, 2015. "Willingness to test for BRCA1/2 in high risk women: Influenced by risk perception and family experience, rather than by objective or subjective numeracy?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(4), pages 386-399, July.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:4:p:386-399 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:4:p:513-533 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Casey Canfield & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Gabrielle Wong-Parodi, 2017. "Perceptions of electricity-use communications: effects of information, format, and individual differences," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(9), pages 1132-1153, September.
    11. Ye, Jun & Zhou, Kun & Chen, Rui, 2021. "Numerical or verbal Information: The effect of comparative information in social comparison on prosocial behavior," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 198-211.
    12. Michael R. Eber & Cass R. Sunstein & James K. Hammitt & Jennifer M. Yeh, 2021. "The modest effects of fact boxes on cancer screening," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 62(1), pages 29-54, February.
    13. Ian G. J. Dawson, 2018. "Assessing the Effects of Information About Global Population Growth on Risk Perceptions and Support for Mitigation and Prevention Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2222-2241, October.
    14. Christina Kreuzmair & Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller, 2017. "Does Iconicity in Pictographs Matter? The Influence of Iconicity and Numeracy on Information Processing, Decision Making, and Liking in an Eye‐Tracking Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 546-556, March.
    15. Cameron Brick & Alexandra L. J. Freeman & Steven Wooding & William J. Skylark & Theresa M. Marteau & David J. Spiegelhalter, 2018. "Winners and losers: communicating the potential impacts of policies," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-13, December.
    16. Paul C. Price & Grace A. Carlock & Sarah Crouse & Mariana Vargas Arciga, 2022. "Effects of icon arrays to communicate risk in a repeated risky decision-making task," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 17(2), pages 378-399, March.
    17. Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Kevin E. Tiede & Rocio Garcia-Retamero, 2023. "The Lure of Beauty: People Select Representations of Statistical Information Largely Based on Attractiveness, Not Comprehensibility," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(7-8), pages 774-788, October.
    18. Lyndal J. Trevena & Carissa Bonner & Yasmina Okan & Ellen Peters & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Paul K. J. Han & Elissa Ozanne & Danielle Timmermans & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2021. "Current Challenges When Using Numbers in Patient Decision Aids: Advanced Concepts," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 834-847, October.
    19. Philip Millroth & HÃ¥kan Nilsson & Peter Juslin, 2019. "The decision paradoxes motivating Prospect Theory: The prevalence of the paradoxes increases with numerical ability," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(4), pages 513-533, July.
    20. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:2:p:378-399 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Christina Kreuzmair & Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller, 2016. "High Numerates Count Icons and Low Numerates Process Large Areas in Pictographs: Results of an Eye‐Tracking Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1599-1614, August.
    22. Rahman, Shaikh Moksadur, 2020. "Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intention: Evidence from Bangladesh," Asian Business Review, Asian Business Consortium, vol. 10(2), pages 99-108.
    23. Wang Kai, 2019. "Towards a Taxonomy of Idea Generation Techniques," Foundations of Management, Sciendo, vol. 11(1), pages 65-80, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:38:y:2018:i:5:p:929-946. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.