IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i8p4690-d792882.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Differences in Data Trustworthiness and Risk Perception between Bar Graphs and Pictograms

Author

Listed:
  • Munehito Machida

    (Center for Integrated Science and Humanities, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima 960-1295, Japan)

  • Michio Murakami

    (Department of Health Risk Communication, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima 960-1295, Japan
    Center for Infectious Disease Education and Research (CiDER), Osaka University, Osaka 565-0871, Japan)

  • Aya Goto

    (Center for Integrated Science and Humanities, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima 960-1295, Japan)

Abstract

We investigated whether differences in presentation style affect risk perception, understanding, preference, and trust toward data. One hundred and sixty Fukushima Medical University students were shown the lifetime probability of breast cancer incidence for a 50-year-old woman, presented in both a pictogram and a horizontal bar graph format. Participants rated each of the following on a five-point scale by looking at each figure: risk perception, perceived truth of data, and comparative risk perception. The perceived truth of data was high for pictograms, especially among men and among those defined as having lower health literacy. Women correctly perceived the risk of breast cancer as higher than that of dying in a car accident when the data were presented on a pictogram. There was no difference in risk perception, perceived truth of data, or comparative risk perception arising from being shown the bar graphs and the pictograms in a particular order. There was a 50/50 split on which type of graph was perceived as easier to understand, but the preference was for the pictogram format. It is important to devise a visual method of health communication that considers the purpose of the information and characteristics of the target audience.

Suggested Citation

  • Munehito Machida & Michio Murakami & Aya Goto, 2022. "Differences in Data Trustworthiness and Risk Perception between Bar Graphs and Pictograms," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-9, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:8:p:4690-:d:792882
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/8/4690/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/8/4690/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marie-Anne Durand & Renata W Yen & James O’Malley & Glyn Elwyn & Julien Mancini, 2020. "Graph literacy matters: Examining the association between graph literacy, health literacy, and numeracy in a Medicaid eligible population," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-14, November.
    2. Garcia-Retamero, R. & Galesic, M., 2009. "Communicating treatment risk reduction to people with low numeracy skills: A cross-cultural comparison," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 99(12), pages 2196-2202.
    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. Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Britta L. Anderson & Jay Schulkin, 2014. "How Do Physicians Provide Statistical Information about Antidepressants to Hypothetical Patients?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(2), pages 206-215, February.
    2. 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.
    3. Saima Ghazal & Edward T. Cokely & Rocio Garcia-Retamero, 2014. "Predicting biases in very highly educated samples: Numeracy and metacognition," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(1), pages 15-34, January.
    4. Marie-Anne Durand & Renata W Yen & James O’Malley & Glyn Elwyn & Julien Mancini, 2020. "Graph literacy matters: Examining the association between graph literacy, health literacy, and numeracy in a Medicaid eligible population," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-14, November.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:1:p:15-34 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. 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.
    7. Schonlau Matthias & Peters Ellen, 2012. "Comprehension of Graphs and Tables Depend on the Task: Empirical Evidence from Two Web-Based Studies," Statistics, Politics and Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-35, August.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:8:p:4690-:d:792882. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.