IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v38y2018i6p646-657.html

Understanding the Effect of Information Presentation Order and Orientation on Information Search and Treatment Evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Claire Louise Heard

    (Department of Psychology, King’s College London, London, UK)

  • Tim Rakow

    (Department of Psychology, King’s College London, London, UK)

  • Tom Foulsham

    (Department of Psychology, University of Essex, Colchester, UK)

Abstract

Background. Past research finds that treatment evaluations are more negative when risks are presented after benefits. This study investigates this order effect: manipulating tabular orientation and order of risk–benefit information, and examining information search order and gaze duration via eye-tracking. Design. 108 (Study 1) and 44 (Study 2) participants viewed information about treatment risks and benefits, in either a horizontal (left-right) or vertical (above-below) orientation, with the benefits or risks presented first (left side or at top). For 4 scenarios, participants answered 6 treatment evaluation questions (1–7 scales) that were combined into overall evaluation scores. In addition, Study 2 collected eye-tracking data during the benefit–risk presentation. Results. Participants tended to read one set of information (i.e., all risks or all benefits) before transitioning to the other. Analysis of order of fixations showed this tendency was stronger in the vertical (standardized mean rank difference further from 0, M  = ± .88) than horizontal orientation ( M  = ± 0.71). Approximately 50% of the time was spent reading benefits when benefits were shown first, but this was reduced to ~40% when risks were presented first (regression coefficient: B = −4.52, p

Suggested Citation

  • Claire Louise Heard & Tim Rakow & Tom Foulsham, 2018. "Understanding the Effect of Information Presentation Order and Orientation on Information Search and Treatment Evaluation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(6), pages 646-657, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:6:p:646-657
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X18785356
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X18785356
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X18785356?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. Edward T. Cokely & Mirta Galesic & Eric Schulz & Saima Ghazal & Rocio Garcia-Retamero, 2012. "Measuring risk literacy: The Berlin Numeracy Test," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(1), pages 25-47, January.
    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. Lillianna Shields & Tony Stovall & Helen Colby, 2023. "Increasing Inclusivity and Reducing Reactance During Provider-Patient Interactions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(4), pages 478-486, May.

    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. Silvia Felletti, 2021. "“Trust me, I’m your neighbour” How to improve epidemic risk containment through community trust," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 20(1), pages 155-158, June.
    2. Madeline Wade & Randy Peppler & Angela Person, 2021. "Community education and perceptions of water reuse: a case study in Norman, Oklahoma," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(2), pages 266-273, June.
    3. Sobkow, Agata & Olszewska, Angelika & Traczyk, Jakub, 2020. "Multiple numeric competencies predict decision outcomes beyond fluid intelligence and cognitive reflection," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    4. Firth, Chris & Stewart, Neil & Antoniou, Constantinos & Leake, David, 2023. "The effects of personality and IQ on portfolio outcomes," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    5. Laine, Tei & Silander, Tomi & Sakamoto, Kayo, 2020. "What distinguishes people who turn into tax evaders when properly incentivized from those who don’t? An experimental study using hypothetical scenarios," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    6. Friedman, Jeffrey A. & Lerner, Jennifer S. & Zeckhauser, Richard, 2015. "How Quantifying Probability Assessments Influences Analysis and Decision Making: Experimental Evidence from National Security Professionals," Working Paper Series 16-016, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    7. Arunachalam Narayanan & Brent B. Moritz, 2015. "Decision Making and Cognition in Multi-Echelon Supply Chains: An Experimental Study," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 24(8), pages 1216-1234, August.
    8. Irina Gemmo & Pierre-Carl Michaud & Olivia S. Mitchell, 2023. "Selection into Financial Education and Effects on Portfolio Choice," NBER Working Papers 31682, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Tinghög, Gustav & Ahmed, Ali & Barrafrem, Kinga & Lind, Thérèse & Skagerlund, Kenny & Västfjäll, Daniel, 2021. "Gender differences in financial literacy: The role of stereotype threat," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 405-416.
    10. Ray Saadaoui Mallek & Mohamed Albaity, 2019. "Individual differences and cognitive reflection across gender and nationality the case of the United Arab Emirates," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 1567965-156, January.
    11. Shoots-Reinhard, Brittany & Goodwin, Raleigh & Bjälkebring, Pär & Markowitz, David M. & Silverstein, Michael C. & Peters, Ellen, 2021. "Ability-related political polarization in the COVID-19 pandemic," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    12. Lambrecht, Marco & Oechssler, Jörg & Weidenholzer, Simon, 2023. "On the benefits of robo-advice in financial markets," Working Papers 0734, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    13. Christine Laudenbach & Michael Ungeheuer & Martin Weber, 2023. "How to Alleviate Correlation Neglect in Investment Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(6), pages 3400-3414, June.
    14. Federica Teppa & Susan Thorp & Hazel Bateman, 2015. "Family, friends and framing: A cross-country study of subjective survival expectations," DNB Working Papers 491, Netherlands Central Bank, Research Department.
    15. Dong, Lu & Huang, Lingbo & Lien, Jaimie W. & Zheng, Jie, 2024. "How alliances form and conflict ensues," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 255-276.
    16. Mark A. Andor & Thomas K. Bauer & Jana Eßer & Christoph M. Schmidt & Lukas Tomberg, 2025. "Who Gets Vaccinated? Cognitive and Non‐Cognitive Predictors of Individual Behaviour in Pandemics," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 87(3), pages 562-585, June.
    17. Bajoori, Elnaz & Peeters, Ronald & Wolk, Leonard, 2024. "Security auctions with cash- and equity-bids: An experimental study," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    18. Bonnie A. Armstrong & Erika P. Sparrow & Julia Spaniol, 2020. "The Effect of Information Formats and Incidental Affect on Prior and Posterior Probability Judgments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(5), pages 680-692, July.
    19. Ingrid Burfurd & Tom Wilkening, 2022. "Cognitive heterogeneity and complex belief elicitation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(2), pages 557-592, April.
    20. Mehdi Mourali & Zhiyong Yang, 2023. "Misperception of Multiple Risks in Medical Decision-Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 50(1), pages 25-47.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:sae:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:6:p:646-657. 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.