IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v45y2025i5p496-509.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Motivated Interpretations of Survival Rates in Icon Arrays: An Issue of Frequency Format?

Author

Listed:
  • Jeremy D. Strueder

    (Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA)

  • Inkyung Park

    (Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA)

  • Siobhan M. McDonnell

    (Department of Pediatrics, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA)

  • Mir A. Basir

    (Department of Pediatrics, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA)

  • Paul D. Windschitl

    (Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA)

Abstract

Background Icon arrays, which visually depict frequencies, are commonly recommended for communicating risk information such as survival rates. However, they have been found to be ineffective at buffering against motivated reasoning that can lead to undue optimism. To determine whether the impersonal frequency format of icon arrays (reporting a number affected out of a reference class) makes them vulnerable to motivated reasoning, a novel intervention is tested as a means for reducing undue optimism. Methods Female US participants from Amazon’s MTurk ( N = 399) imagined a scenario in which their infant would be born extremely preterm. They were presented with icon array information about the survival chances (15-in-100 or 45-in-100) of prematurely born infants with intensive care. For the key intervention, some participants were asked a reflection question immediately after seeing the icon array, which prompted them to indicate what the information meant for their own infant’s percent-chance of survival (i.e., they converted a frequency about a reference class to a probability value about the personal outcome of interest). For other participants, the reflection question merely asked about frequency. The main dependent measure came next and assessed gut-level optimism. Results People’s gut-level beliefs about their infant’s chances of survival were optimistically biased; the intervention did not reduce this. These gut-level beliefs, rather than the objective survival rate information conveyed through icon arrays, were predictive of subsequent treatment choices. Conclusions The results suggest that the inability of icon arrays to buffer against motivated reasoning is not due to their frequency format. Moreover, the findings highlight the usefulness of measuring gut-level interpretations of likelihood, which can reveal significant insights into the psychological mechanisms driving patient-treatment choices. Highlights Icon arrays, which visually depict frequencies, are commonly recommended as best-practice for communicating risk information in health contexts. However, recent work has found that they are ineffective at reducing the extent to which people engage in motivated reasoning when processing likelihood information. We find that the frequency format of icon arrays—depicting a rate for outcomes in a group of people rather than a case-specific probability—is not a primary reason why they are ineffective at reducing optimism bias We also find that measures of gut-level beliefs of likelihood are particularly well suited for detecting optimism bias, yet also predict subsequent treatment decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeremy D. Strueder & Inkyung Park & Siobhan M. McDonnell & Mir A. Basir & Paul D. Windschitl, 2025. "Motivated Interpretations of Survival Rates in Icon Arrays: An Issue of Frequency Format?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 45(5), pages 496-509, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:45:y:2025:i:5:p:496-509
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X251332315
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X251332315
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X251332315?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
    ---><---

    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:45:y:2025:i:5:p:496-509. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.