IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v31y2011i1p143-150.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effect of Arrangement of Stick Figures on Estimates of Proportion in Risk Graphics

Author

Listed:
  • Jessica S. Ancker
  • Elke U. Weber
  • Rita Kukafka

Abstract

Background . Health risks are sometimes illustrated with stick figures, with a certain proportion colored to indicate they are affected by the disease. Perception of these graphics may be affected by whether the affected stick figures are scattered randomly throughout the group or arranged in a block. Objective . To assess the effects of stick-figure arrangement on first impressions of estimates of proportion, under a 10-s deadline. Design . Questionnaire. Participants and Setting . Respondents recruited online (n = 100) or in waiting rooms at an urban hospital (n = 65). Intervention . Participants were asked to estimate the proportion represented in 6 unlabeled graphics, half randomly arranged and half sequentially arranged. Measurements . Estimated proportions. Results . Although average estimates were fairly good, the variability of estimates was high. Overestimates of random graphics were larger than overestimates of sequential ones, except when the proportion was near 50%; variability was also higher with random graphics. Although the average inaccuracy was modest, it was large enough that more than one quarter of respondents confused 2 graphics depicting proportions that differed by 11 percentage points. Low numeracy and educational level were associated with inaccuracy. Limitations . Participants estimated proportions but did not report perceived risk. Conclusions . Randomly arranged arrays of stick figures should be used with care because viewers’ ability to estimate the proportion in these graphics is so poor that moderate differences between risks may not be visible. In addition, random arrangements may create an initial impression that proportions, especially large ones, are larger than they are.

Suggested Citation

  • Jessica S. Ancker & Elke U. Weber & Rita Kukafka, 2011. "Effect of Arrangement of Stick Figures on Estimates of Proportion in Risk Graphics," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 143-150, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:31:y:2011:i:1:p:143-150
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10369006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X10369006
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X10369006?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. Andrea D. Gurmankin & Jonathan Baron & Katrina Armstrong, 2004. "Intended Message Versus Message Received in Hypothetical Physician Risk Communications: Exploring the Gap," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1337-1347, October.
    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. 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.
    2. Tadeusz Tyszka & Przemyslaw Sawicki, 2011. "Affective and Cognitive Factors Influencing Sensitivity to Probabilistic Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1832-1845, November.

    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. Rocio Garcia-Retamero & Allen Andrade & Joseph Sharit & Jorge G. Ruiz, 2015. "Is Patients’ Numeracy Related to Physical and Mental Health?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(4), pages 501-511, May.
    2. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim W. F. Passchier & Nanne N. K. De Vries, 2009. "Probability Information in Risk Communication: A Review of the Research Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 267-287, February.
    3. Ruttan, Rachel L. & Nordgren, Loran F., 2016. "The strength to face the facts: Self-regulation defends against defensive information processing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 86-98.
    4. Noel T. Brewer & Janice P. Tzeng & Sarah E. Lillie & Alrick S. Edwards & Jeffrey M. Peppercorn & Barbara K. Rimer, 2009. "Health Literacy and Cancer Risk Perception: Implications for Genomic Risk Communication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(2), pages 157-166, March.
    5. Theresa A. K. Knoblauch & Michael Stauffacher & Evelina Trutnevyte, 2018. "Communicating Low‐Probability High‐Consequence Risk, Uncertainty and Expert Confidence: Induced Seismicity of Deep Geothermal Energy and Shale Gas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(4), pages 694-709, April.
    6. Marsha Wittink & Mark Cary & Thomas TenHave & Jonathan Baron & Joseph Gallo, 2010. "Towards Patient-Centered Care for Depression," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(3), pages 145-157, September.
    7. Jessica S. Ancker & Elke U. Weber & Rita Kukafka, 2011. "Effects of Game-Like Interactive Graphics on Risk Perceptions and Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 130-142, January.
    8. Collins, Dorothy L. & Street Jr., Richard L., 2009. "A dialogic model of conversations about risk: Coordinating perceptions and achieving quality decisions in cancer care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1506-1512, April.

    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:sae:medema:v:31:y:2011:i:1:p:143-150. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.