IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v30y2010i9p1387-1398.html

Understanding the Positive Effects of Graphical Risk Information on Comprehension: Measuring Attention Directed to Written, Tabular, and Graphical Risk Information

Author

Listed:
  • Chris M. R. Smerecnik
  • Ilse Mesters
  • Loes T. E. Kessels
  • Robert A. C. Ruiter
  • Nanne K. De Vries
  • Hein De Vries

Abstract

Risk communications are an integral aspect of health education and promotion. However, the commonly used textual risk information is relatively difficult to understand for the average recipient. Consequently, researchers and health promoters have started to focus on so‐called decision aids, such as tables and graphs. Although tabular and graphical risk information more effectively communicate risks than textual risk information, the cognitive mechanisms responsible for this enhancement are unclear. This study aimed to examine two possible mechanisms (i.e., cognitive workload and attention). Cognitive workload (mean pupil size and peak pupil dilation) and attention directed to the risk information (viewing time, number of eye fixations, and eye fixation durations) were both measured in a between‐subjects experimental design. The results suggest that graphical risk information facilitates comprehension of that information because it attracts and holds attention for a longer period of time than textual risk information. Graphs are thus a valuable asset to risk communication practice for two reasons: first, they tend to attract attention and, second, when attended to, they elicit information extraction with relatively little cognitive effort, and finally result in better comprehension.

Suggested Citation

  • Chris M. R. Smerecnik & Ilse Mesters & Loes T. E. Kessels & Robert A. C. Ruiter & Nanne K. De Vries & Hein De Vries, 2010. "Understanding the Positive Effects of Graphical Risk Information on Comprehension: Measuring Attention Directed to Written, Tabular, and Graphical Risk Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(9), pages 1387-1398, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:30:y:2010:i:9:p:1387-1398
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01435.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01435.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01435.x?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. Deb Feldman-Stewart & Nancy Kocovski & Beth A. McConnell & Michael D. Brundage & William J. Mackillop, 2000. "Perception of Quantitative Information for Treatment Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(2), pages 228-238, April.
    2. Lisa M. Schwartz & Steven Woloshin & H. Gilbert Welch, 2005. "Can Patients Interpret Health Information? An Assessment of the Medical Data Interpretation Test," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(3), pages 290-300, May.
    3. 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.
    4. Marilyn M. Schapira & Ann B. Nattinger & Colleen A. McHorney, 2001. "Frequency or Probability? A Qualitative Study of Risk Communication Formats Used in Health Care," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(6), pages 459-467, December.
    5. 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.
    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. Ana Cecilia Quiroga Gutierrez & Stefan Boes, 2024. "Bridging the gap: Experimental evidence on information provision and health insurance choices," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(6), pages 1368-1386, June.
    2. Mihai Țichindelean & Monica Teodora Țichindelean & Iuliana Cetină & Gheorghe Orzan, 2021. "A Comparative Eye Tracking Study of Usability—Towards Sustainable Web Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-31, September.
    3. Borozan, Miloš & Loreta, Cannito & Riccardo, Palumbo, 2022. "Eye-tracking for the study of financial decision-making: A systematic review of the literature," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(C).
    4. T. Soliman & A. MacLeod & J. D. Mumford & T. P. L. Nghiem & H. T. W. Tan & S. K. Papworth & R. T. Corlett & L. R. Carrasco, 2016. "A Regional Decision Support Scheme for Pest Risk Analysis in Southeast Asia," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(5), pages 904-913, May.
    5. Noel T. Brewer & Melissa B. Gilkey & Sarah E. Lillie & Bradford W. Hesse & Stacey L. Sheridan, 2012. "Tables or Bar Graphs? Presenting Test Results in Electronic Medical Records," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(4), pages 545-553, July.
    6. Christopher E. Clarke & Jeff Niederdeppe & Helen C. Lundell, 2012. "Narratives and Images Used by Public Communication Campaigns Addressing Social Determinants of Health and Health Disparities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-24, November.
    7. Lyndal J. Trevena & Carissa Bonner & Yasmina Okan & Ellen Peters & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Paul K. J. Han & Elissa Ozanne & Danielle Timmermans & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2021. "Current Challenges When Using Numbers in Patient Decision Aids: Advanced Concepts," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 834-847, October.
    8. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Aysil Emirmahmutoglu & Johannes Jaspersen & Richard Peter, 2022. "When Risk Perception Gets in the Way: Probability Weighting and Underprevention," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 70(3), pages 1371-1392, May.
    9. Michelle S. Segovia & Marco A. Palma & Jayson L. Lusk & Andreas C. Drichoutis, 2025. "Visual formats in risk preference elicitation: What catches the eye?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 70(3), pages 275-303, June.
    10. Chris M. R. Smerecnik & Ilse Mesters & Math J. J. M. Candel & Hein De Vries & Nanne K. De Vries, 2012. "Risk Perception and Information Processing: The Development and Validation of a Questionnaire to Assess Self‐Reported Information Processing," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 54-66, January.

    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. Eric R. Stone & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Abigail M. Wilkins & Emily M. Boker & Jacqueline MacDonald Gibson, 2017. "Designing Graphs to Communicate Risks: Understanding How the Choice of Graphical Format Influences Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 612-628, April.
    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. Lyndal J. Trevena & Carissa Bonner & Yasmina Okan & Ellen Peters & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Paul K. J. Han & Elissa Ozanne & Danielle Timmermans & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2021. "Current Challenges When Using Numbers in Patient Decision Aids: Advanced Concepts," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 834-847, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Casey Canfield & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Gabrielle Wong-Parodi, 2017. "Perceptions of electricity-use communications: effects of information, format, and individual differences," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(9), pages 1132-1153, September.
    6. Ana Cecilia Quiroga Gutierrez & Stefan Boes, 2024. "Bridging the gap: Experimental evidence on information provision and health insurance choices," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(6), pages 1368-1386, June.
    7. Jantsje M. Mol & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Julia E. Blasch & Hans de Moel, 2020. "Insights into Flood Risk Misperceptions of Homeowners in the Dutch River Delta," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(7), pages 1450-1468, July.
    8. 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.
    9. Michael Yu & Tomás Lejarraga & Cleotilde Gonzalez, 2012. "Context‐Specific, Scenario‐Based Risk Scales," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(12), pages 2166-2181, December.
    10. Kirsten J. McCaffery & Sian K. Smith & Michael Wolf, 2010. "The Challenge of Shared Decision Making Among Patients With Lower Literacy: A Framework for Research and Development," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(1), pages 35-44, January.
    11. Xesfingi, Sofia & Vozikis, Athanasios, 2014. "What shapes eHealth literacy of an individual?," MPRA Paper 60187, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Warut Khern-am-nuai & Matthew J. Hashim & Alain Pinsonneault & Weining Yang & Ninghui Li, 2023. "Augmenting Password Strength Meter Design Using the Elaboration Likelihood Model: Evidence from Randomized Experiments," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 157-177, March.
    13. Timmons, Shane & Robertson, Deirdre & Lunn, Pete, 2022. "Combining nudges and boosts to increase precautionary saving: A large-scale field experiment," Papers WP722, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    14. Rebecca Hess & Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Michael Siegrist, 2011. "Risk communication with pictographs: The role of numeracy and graph processing," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(3), pages 263-274, April.
    15. Karl Schlag & James Tremewan, 2021. "Simple belief elicitation: An experimental evaluation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 62(2), pages 137-155, April.
    16. Isaac M. Lipkus, 2007. "Numeric, Verbal, and Visual Formats of Conveying Health Risks: Suggested Best Practices and Future Recommendations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 696-713, September.
    17. Tanja Perko & Baldwin van Gorp & Catrinel Turcanu & Peter Thijssen & Benny Carle, 2013. "Communication in Nuclear Emergency Preparedness: A Closer Look at Information Reception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 1987-2001, November.
    18. Joseph Daron & Susanne Lorenz & Andrea Taylor & Suraje Dessai, 2021. "Communicating future climate projections of precipitation change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 1-20, May.
    19. Li‐Hsiang Wang & Suzanne Goopy & Chun‐Chih Lin & Alan Barnard & Chin‐Yen Han & Hsueh‐Erh Liu, 2016. "The emergency patient's participation in medical decision‐making," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(17-18), pages 2550-2558, September.
    20. Schlosser, Ann E., 2018. "What are my chances? An imagery versus discursive processing approach to understanding ratio-bias effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 112-124.

    More about this item

    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:wly:riskan:v:30:y:2010:i:9:p:1387-1398. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.