IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v31y2011i2p354-366.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Communication of Uncertainty Regarding Individualized Cancer Risk Estimates

Author

Listed:
  • Paul K. J. Han
  • William M. P. Klein
  • Tom Lehman
  • Bill Killam
  • Holly Massett
  • Andrew N. Freedman

Abstract

Objective . To examine the effects of communicating uncertainty regarding individualized colorectal cancer risk estimates and to identify factors that influence these effects. Methods . Two Web-based experiments were conducted, in which adults aged 40 years and older were provided with hypothetical individualized colorectal cancer risk estimates differing in the extent and representation of expressed uncertainty. The uncertainty consisted of imprecision (otherwise known as “ambiguity†) of the risk estimates and was communicated using different representations of confidence intervals. Experiment 1 ( n = 240) tested the effects of ambiguity (confidence interval v. point estimate) and representational format (textual v. visual) on cancer risk perceptions and worry. Potential effect modifiers, including personality type (optimism), numeracy, and the information’s perceived credibility, were examined, along with the influence of communicating uncertainty on responses to comparative risk information. Experiment 2 ( n = 135) tested enhanced representations of ambiguity that incorporated supplemental textual and visual depictions. Results . Communicating uncertainty led to heightened cancer-related worry in participants, exemplifying the phenomenon of “ambiguity aversion.†This effect was moderated by representational format and dispositional optimism; textual (v. visual) format and low (v. high) optimism were associated with greater ambiguity aversion. However, when enhanced representations were used to communicate uncertainty, textual and visual formats showed similar effects. Both the communication of uncertainty and use of the visual format diminished the influence of comparative risk information on risk perceptions. Conclusions . The communication of uncertainty regarding cancer risk estimates has complex effects, which include heightening cancer-related worry—consistent with ambiguity aversion—and diminishing the influence of comparative risk information on risk perceptions. These responses are influenced by representational format and personality type, and the influence of format appears to be modifiable and content dependent.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul K. J. Han & William M. P. Klein & Tom Lehman & Bill Killam & Holly Massett & Andrew N. Freedman, 2011. "Communication of Uncertainty Regarding Individualized Cancer Risk Estimates," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(2), pages 354-366, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:31:y:2011:i:2:p:354-366
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10371830
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X10371830
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X10371830?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. Viscusi, W Kip, 1997. "Alarmist Decisions with Divergent Risk Information," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(445), pages 1657-1670, November.
    2. Harald Ibrekk & M. Granger Morgan, 1987. "Graphical Communication of Uncertain Quantities to Nontechnical People," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(4), pages 519-529, December.
    3. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    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. W. Kip Viscusi & Wesley A. Magat & Joel Huber, 1999. "Smoking Status and Public Responses to Ambiguous Scientific Risk Evidence," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 66(2), pages 250-270, October.
    6. Branden B. Johnson & Paul Slovic, 1995. "Presenting Uncertainty in Health Risk Assessment: Initial Studies of Its Effects on Risk Perception and Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 485-494, August.
    7. Kuhn, Kristine M., 1997. "Communicating Uncertainty: Framing Effects on Responses to Vague Probabilities," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 55-83, July.
    8. Highhouse, Scott, 1994. "A verbal protocol analysis of choice under ambiguity," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 621-635, December.
    9. Stone, Eric R. & Sieck, Winston R. & Bull, Benita E. & Frank Yates, J. & Parks, Stephanie C. & Rush, Carolyn J., 2003. "Foreground:background salience: Explaining the effects of graphical displays on risk avoidance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 19-36, January.
    10. Einhorn, Hillel J & Hogarth, Robin M, 1986. "Decision Making under Ambiguity," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 225-250, October.
    11. Curley, Shawn P. & Yates, J. Frank, 1985. "The center and range of the probability interval as factors affecting ambiguity preferences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 273-287, 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. Berger, Loïc & Bleichrodt, Han & Eeckhoudt, Louis, 2013. "Treatment decisions under ambiguity," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 559-569.
    2. Dean, Marleah, 2016. "“It’s not if I get cancer, it’s when I get cancer”: BRCA-positive patients’ (un)certain health experiences regarding hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 21-27.
    3. Jakob D. Jensen & Manusheela Pokharel & Courtney L. Scherr & Andy J. King & Natasha Brown & Christina Jones, 2017. "Communicating Uncertain Science to the Public: How Amount and Source of Uncertainty Impact Fatalism, Backlash, and Overload," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 40-51, January.
    4. van der Bles, Anne Marthe & van der Liden, Sander & Freeman, Alessandra L. J. & Mitchell, James & Galvao, Ana Beatriz & Spiegelhalter, David J., 2019. "Communicating uncertainty about facts, numbers, and science," EMF Research Papers 22, Economic Modelling and Forecasting Group.
    5. Toshio Fujimi & Masahide Watanabe & Hirokazu Tatano, 2021. "Public trust, perceived accuracy, perceived likelihood, and concern on multi-model climate projections communicated with different formats," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 1-20, June.

    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. Jean Desrochers & J. Francois Outreville, 2013. "Uncertainty, Ambiguity and Risk Taking: an experimental investigation of consumer behavior and demand for insurance," ICER Working Papers 10-2013, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    2. Nathan F. Dieckmann & Robert Mauro & Paul Slovic, 2010. "The Effects of Presenting Imprecise Probabilities in Intelligence Forecasts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(6), pages 987-1001, June.
    3. Budescu, David V. & Kuhn, Kristine M. & Kramer, Karen M. & Johnson, Timothy R., 2002. "Modeling certainty equivalents for imprecise gambles," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 748-768, July.
    4. Mary C. Politi & Paul K. J. Han & Nananda F. Col, 2007. "Communicating the Uncertainty of Harms and Benefits of Medical Interventions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 681-695, September.
    5. Eyal Ert & Stefan Trautmann, 2014. "Sampling experience reverses preferences for ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 31-42, August.
    6. Paul Dolan & Martin Jones, 2002. "Explaining Attitudes towards Ambiguity: An Experimental Test of the Comparative Ignorance Hypothesis," Dundee Discussion Papers in Economics 131, Economic Studies, University of Dundee.
    7. Shaw, W. Douglass & Woodward, Richard T., 2008. "Why environmental and resource economists should care about non-expected utility models," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 66-89, January.
    8. Anna Rabinovich & Thomas A. Morton, 2012. "Unquestioned Answers or Unanswered Questions: Beliefs About Science Guide Responses to Uncertainty in Climate Change Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(6), pages 992-1002, June.
    9. Richard J. Arend, 2020. "Strategic decision-making under ambiguity: a new problem space and a proposed optimization approach," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(3), pages 1231-1251, November.
    10. Paul K. J. Han & William M. P. Klein & Thomas C. Lehman & Holly Massett & Simon C. Lee & Andrew N. Freedman, 2009. "Laypersons' Responses to the Communication of Uncertainty Regarding Cancer Risk Estimates," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(3), pages 391-403, May.
    11. Paul Dolan & Martin Jones, 2004. "Explaining Attitudes Towards Ambiguity: An Experimental Test Of The Comparative Ignorance Hypothesis," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 51(3), pages 281-301, August.
    12. Cédric Lesage & Yuan Ding & Thomas Jeanjean & Hervé Stolowy, 2009. "An experiment in the economic consequences of additional disclosure: The case of the Fair Value of Unlisted Equity Investments," Post-Print hal-00495573, HAL.
    13. Langewisch, Andrew & Choobineh, Fred, 1996. "Stochastic dominance tests for ranking alternatives under ambiguity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 139-154, November.
    14. DeKay, Michael L. & Patiño-Echeverri, Dalia & Fischbeck, Paul S., 2009. "Distortion of probability and outcome information in risky decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 109(1), pages 79-92, May.
    15. Christoph Bühren & Fabian Meier & Marco Pleßner, 2023. "Ambiguity aversion: bibliometric analysis and literature review of the last 60 years," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 495-525, June.
    16. Dolores J. Severtson & Jeffrey D. Myers, 2013. "The Influence of Uncertain Map Features on Risk Beliefs and Perceived Ambiguity for Maps of Modeled Cancer Risk from Air Pollution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(5), pages 818-837, May.
    17. W. Viscusi & Harrell Chesson, 1999. "Hopes and Fears: the Conflicting Effects of Risk Ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 157-184, October.
    18. Riddel, Mary C. & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2006. "A Theoretically-Consistent Empirical Non-Expected Utility Model of Ambiguity: Nuclear Waste Mortality Risk and Yucca Mountain," Pre-Prints 23964, Texas A&M University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    19. Peter, Richard & Ying, Jie, 2020. "Do you trust your insurer? Ambiguity about contract nonperformance and optimal insurance demand," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 938-954.
    20. Mercè Roca & Robin Hogarth & A. Maule, 2006. "Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 175-194, May.

    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:2:p:354-366. 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.