IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v40y2020i2p212-221.html

When Does the Incremental Risk Format Aid Informed Medical Decisions? The Role of Learning, Feedback, and Number of Treatment Options

Author

Listed:
  • Kevin E. Tiede

    (Department of Psychology, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany
    Graduate School of Decision Sciences, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany)

  • Felicia Ripke

    (Department of Psychology, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany)

  • Nicole Degen

    (Department of Psychology, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany)

  • Wolfgang Gaissmaier

    (Department of Psychology, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany
    Centre for the Advanced Study of Collective Behaviour, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany)

Abstract

Background. Informed medical decisions require understanding the benefits and risks of treatments. This entails comparing treatment outcomes to a control group. The incremental risk format has been recommended as it directly visualizes the differences between treatment and control group in 1 graph, whereas they have to be calculated from 2 separate graphs in the total risk format . We investigated when the incremental risk format aids understanding. Methods. In 2 experiments, participants received information about medical treatments, either as incremental or total risk format. We assessed verbatim knowledge (precise quantitative knowledge), gist knowledge (knowledge of essential meaning), and evaluations of the formats. Study 1 ( N = 99) consisted of only 1 trial with medical information and also assessed recall. Study 2 ( N = 222) assessed learning across multiple trials and also varied the presence of feedback and the number of treatment options. Results. In study 1, the incremental risk format (v. total risk format) led to worse knowledge, recall, and evaluations. In study 2, participants learned to understand the incremental risk format over time, resulting in comparable verbatim knowledge and evaluations as in the total risk format, as well as in even better gist knowledge. Feedback and number of treatment options did not moderate the effect of risk format. Limitations. The studies were conducted with nonpatient samples, and study 2 employed hypothetical treatments. Conclusions. The incremental risk format was initially less understandable than the total risk format. After a short learning period, however, the incremental risk format resulted in better gist knowledge and was comparable otherwise, which suggests that participants had to get used to that format. This has important implications for the study of new formats.

Suggested Citation

  • Kevin E. Tiede & Felicia Ripke & Nicole Degen & Wolfgang Gaissmaier, 2020. "When Does the Incremental Risk Format Aid Informed Medical Decisions? The Role of Learning, Feedback, and Number of Treatment Options," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(2), pages 212-221, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:2:p:212-221
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X20904357
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X20904357
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X20904357?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.
    2. Garcia-Retamero, Rocio & Galesic, Mirta, 2010. "Who proficts from visual aids: Overcoming challenges in people's understanding of risks," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1019-1025, April.
    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. Aysegul Kanay & Denis Hilton & Laetitia Charalambides & Jean-Baptiste Corrégé & Eva Inaudi & Laurent Waroquier & Stéphane Cézéra, 2021. "Making the carbon basket count: Goal setting promotes sustainable consumption in a simulated online supermarket," Post-Print hal-03403040, HAL.
    2. Dafina Petrova & Rocio Garcia-Retamero & Edward T. Cokely, 2015. "Understanding the Harms and Benefits of Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(7), pages 847-858, October.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Bajoori, Elnaz & Peeters, Ronald & Wolk, Leonard, 2024. "Security auctions with cash- and equity-bids: An experimental study," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    16. Rachel F. Eyler & Sara Cordes & Benjamin R. Szymanski & Liana Fraenkel, 2017. "Utilization of Continuous “Spinners†to Communicate Risk," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(6), pages 725-729, August.
    17. 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.
    18. Firth, Chris, 2020. "Protecting investors from themselves: Evidence from a regulatory intervention," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 27(C).
    19. Karl Halvor Teigen & Erik Løhre & Sigrid Møyner Hohle, 2018. "The boundary effect: Perceived post hoc accuracy of prediction intervals," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(4), pages 309-321, July.
    20. Sven Gruener, 2024. "Determinants of Gullibility to Misinformation: A Study of Climate Change, COVID-19 and Artificial Intelligence," Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, , vol. 36(1), pages 58-78, January.

    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:40:y:2020:i:2:p:212-221. 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.