IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v17y2022i2p378-399_7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of icon arrays to communicate risk in a repeated risky decision-making task

Author

Listed:
  • Price, Paul C.
  • Carlock, Grace A.
  • Crouse, Sarah
  • Arciga, Mariana Vargas

Abstract

In two experiments, participants decided on each of several trials whether or not to take a risk. If they chose to take the risk, they had a relatively high probability (from 75% to 95%) of winning a small number of points and a relatively low probability (5% to 25%) of losing a large number of points. The loss amounts varied so that the expected value of taking the risk was positive on some trials, zero on others, and negative on the rest. The main independent variable was whether the probability of losing was communicated using numerical percentages or icon arrays. Both experiments included random icon arrays, in which the icons representing losses were randomly distributed throughout the array. Experiment 2 also included grouped icon arrays, in which the icons representing losses were grouped at the bottom of the array. Neither type of icon array led to better performance in the task. However, the random icon arrays led to less risk taking than the numerical percentages or the grouped icon arrays, especially at the higher loss probabilities. In a third experiment, participants made direct judgments of the percentages and probabilities represented by the icon arrays from Experiment 2. The results supported the idea that random arrays lead to less risk taking because they are perceived to represent greater loss probabilities. These results have several implications for the study of icon arrays and their use in risk communication.

Suggested Citation

  • Price, Paul C. & Carlock, Grace A. & Crouse, Sarah & Arciga, Mariana Vargas, 2022. "Effects of icon arrays to communicate risk in a repeated risky decision-making task," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 378-399, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:2:p:378-399_7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500009153/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:2:p:378-399_7. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    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.