IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v170y2022ics0749597822000152.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The 1-in-X effect in perceptions of risk likelihood differences

Author

Listed:
  • Suk, Kwanho
  • Hwang, Sanyoung
  • Jeong, Yunjoo

Abstract

In risk communication, 1-in-X and N-in-10p ratios are used frequently to present likelihood information. This research examines the effect of numeric formats (1-in-X vs. N-in-10p) on perceived difference in multiple risk likelihoods through six experiments (N = 2,254). We find that the perceived difference in risk likelihoods is greater when the information is presented as the 1-in-X ratio than the N-in-10p ratio in the context of risk increase and reduction, which in turn also affects risk-related downstream behavioral consequences such as behavioral intentions, willingness to pay, and donation target selection. Furthermore, the numeric format effect is greater as risk levels become lower. The reason is because the two formats differ in terms of which fraction element is fixed (i.e., a fixed numerator in the 1-in-X format and a fixed denominator in the N-in-10p format) and how the varying fraction element changes with probability levels. Study results imply that the numeric format effect is because of the overestimation of the difference of the risk likelihoods presented in the 1-in-X format. The findings have important theoretical and practical implications for risk communication.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:170:y:2022:i:c:s0749597822000152
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104131
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597822000152
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104131?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefania Pighin & Lucia Savadori & Elisa Barilli & Rino Rumiati & Sara Bonalumi & Maurizio Ferrari & Laura Cremonesi, 2013. "Using Comparison Scenarios to Improve Prenatal Risk Communication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 48-58, January.
    2. Miroslav Sirota & Marie Juanchich & Dafina Petrova & Rocio Garcia-Retamero & Lukasz Walasek & Sudeep Bhatia, 2018. "Health Professionals Prefer to Communicate Risk-Related Numerical Information Using “1-in-X†Ratios," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(3), pages 366-376, April.
    3. Miroslav Sirota & Marie Juanchich, 2019. "Ratio Format Shapes Health Decisions: The Practical Significance of the “1-in-X†Effect," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(1), pages 32-40, January.
    4. 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.
    5. Nicolai Bodemer & Björn Meder & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2014. "Communicating Relative Risk Changes with Baseline Risk," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(5), pages 615-626, July.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i::p:-416 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2014. "Continued Use of 1-in-X Risk Communications Is a Systemic Problem," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(4), pages 412-413, May.
    8. Jurriaan P. Oudhoff & Daniëlle R. M. Timmermans, 2015. "The Effect of Different Graphical and Numerical Likelihood Formats on Perception of Likelihood and Choice," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(4), pages 487-500, May.
    9. Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2011. "Time to Retire the 1-in-X Risk Format," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(5), pages 703-704, September.
    10. Miroslav Sirota & Marie Juanchich & Olga Kostopoulou & Robert Hanak, 2014. "Decisive Evidence on a Smaller-Than-You-Think Phenomenon," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(4), pages 419-429, May.
    11. Mario Pandelaere & Barbara Briers & Christophe Lembregts, 2011. "How to Make a 29% Increase Look Bigger: The Unit Effect in Option Comparisons," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 38(2), pages 308-322.
    12. M. Pandelaere & B. Briers, 2011. "How to Make a 29% Increase Look Bigger: Numerosity Effects in Option Comparisons," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 11/712, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    13. Stefania Pighin & Lucia Savadori & Elisa Barilli & Laura Cremonesi & Maurizio Ferrari & Jean-François Bonnefon, 2011. "The 1-in-X Effect on the Subjective Assessment of Medical Probabilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(5), pages 721-729, September.
    14. Ido Erev & Ira Glozman & Ralph Hertwig, 2008. "What impacts the impact of rare events," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 153-177, April.
    15. Stone, Eric R. & Yates, J. Frank & Parker, Andrew M., 1994. "Risk Communication: Absolute versus Relative Expressions of Low-Probability Risks," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 387-408, December.
    16. Isaac M. Lipkus, 2007. "Numeric, Verbal, and Visual Formats of Conveying Health Risks: Suggested Best Practices and Future Recommendations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 696-713, September.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Carissa Bonner & Lyndal J. Trevena & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Paul K. J. Han & Yasmina Okan & Elissa Ozanne & Ellen Peters & Daniëlle Timmermans & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2021. "Current Best Practice for Presenting Probabilities in Patient Decision Aids: Fundamental Principles," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 821-833, October.
    2. 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.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:6:p:972-988 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Mario Herberz & Tobias Brosch & Ulf J. J. Hahnel, 2020. "Kilo what? Default units increase value sensitivity in joint evaluations of energy efficiency," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(6), pages 972-988, November.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:5:p:420-432 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Garcia-Retamero, Rocio & Hoffrage, Ulrich, 2013. "Visual representation of statistical information improves diagnostic inferences in doctors and their patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 27-33.
    7. Antonio J. Morales & Enrique Fatas, 2021. "Price competition and nominal illusion: experimental evidence and a behavioural model," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 607-632, December.
    8. Michal Mijal, 2012. "Computer games in the organization - psychological determinants (Gry komputerowe w organizacji - uwarunkowania psychologiczne)," Problemy Zarzadzania, University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management, vol. 10(38), pages 262-270.
    9. 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.
    10. Thomas Hagedorn & Jan Wessel, 2022. "How Information on Emissions per Euro Spent can Influence Leisure Travel Decisions," Working Papers 35, Institute of Transport Economics, University of Muenster.
    11. Yao, Jun & Oppewal, Harmen, 2016. "Unit Pricing Increases Price Sensitivity Even When Products are of Identical Size," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 92(1), pages 109-121.
    12. Carmen Keller & Christina Kreuzmair & Rebecca Leins-Hess & Michael Siegrist, 2014. "Numeric and graphic risk information processing of high and low numerates in the intuitive and deliberative decision modes: An eye-tracker study," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(5), pages 420-432, September.
    13. Lembregts, Christophe & Pandelaere, Mario, 2014. ""A 20% income increase for everyone?": The effect of relative increases in income on perceived income inequality," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 37-47.
    14. Ohlwein, Martin, 2022. "Same but different - The effect of the unit of measure on the valuation of a unit price," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    15. Arnaud Monnier & Manoj Thomas, 2022. "Experiential and Analytical Price Evaluations: How Experiential Product Description Affects Prices [The Utility of an Information Processing Approach for Behavioral Price Research]," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 49(4), pages 574-594.
    16. Huang, Wen-Hsien & Cheng, Yi-Ching, 2015. "Threshold free shipping policies for internet shoppers," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 193-203.
    17. Fecher, André & Robbert, Thomas & Roth, Stefan, 2020. "Per piece or per kilogram? Default-unit effects in retailing," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    18. Jonathan W. Leland & Mark Schneider & Jonathan Leland, 2016. "Axioms for Salience Perception," Working Papers 16-15, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    19. Fecher, André & Robbert, Thomas & Roth, Stefan, 2019. "Same price, different perception: Measurement-unit effects on price-level perceptions and purchase intentions," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 129-142.
    20. 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.
    21. Jonathan W. Leland & Mark Schneider, 2016. "Salience, Framing, and Decisions under Risk, Uncertainty, and Time," Working Papers 16-08, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    22. Santana, Shelle & Thomas, Manoj & Morwitz, Vicki G., 2020. "The Role of Numbers in the Customer Journey," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 138-154.

    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:eee:jobhdp:v:170:y:2022:i:c:s0749597822000152. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    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.