IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v32y2012i12p2055-2070.html

Decision Making for Risk Management: A Comparison of Graphical Methods for Presenting Quantitative Uncertainty

Author

Listed:
  • John A. Edwards
  • Frank J. Snyder
  • Pamela M. Allen
  • Kevin A. Makinson
  • David M. Hamby

Abstract

Previous research has shown that people err when making decisions aided by probability information. Surprisingly, there has been little exploration into the accuracy of decisions made based on many commonly used probabilistic display methods. Two experiments examined the ability of a comprehensive set of such methods to effectively communicate critical information to a decision maker and influence confidence in decision making. The second experiment investigated the performance of these methods under time pressure, a situational factor known to exacerbate judgmental errors. Ten commonly used graphical display methods were randomly assigned to participants. Across eight scenarios in which a probabilistic outcome was described, participants were asked questions regarding graph interpretation (e.g., mean) and made behavioral choices (i.e., act; do not act) based on the provided information indicated that decision‐maker accuracy differed by graphical method; error bars and boxplots led to greatest mean estimation and behavioral choice accuracy whereas complementary cumulative probability distribution functions were associated with the highest probability estimation accuracy. Under time pressure, participant performance decreased when making behavioral choices.

Suggested Citation

  • John A. Edwards & Frank J. Snyder & Pamela M. Allen & Kevin A. Makinson & David M. Hamby, 2012. "Decision Making for Risk Management: A Comparison of Graphical Methods for Presenting Quantitative Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(12), pages 2055-2070, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:32:y:2012:i:12:p:2055-2070
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01839.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01839.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01839.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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. Jean M Carlson & David L Alderson & Sean P Stromberg & Danielle S Bassett & Emily M Craparo & Francisco Guiterrez-Villarreal & Thomas Otani, 2014. "Measuring and Modeling Behavioral Decision Dynamics in Collective Evacuation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-17, February.
    2. Pamela M. Allen & John A. Edwards & Frank J. Snyder & Kevin A. Makinson & David M. Hamby, 2014. "The Effect of Cognitive Load on Decision Making with Graphically Displayed Uncertainty Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(8), pages 1495-1505, August.
    3. Karin Eberhard, 2023. "The effects of visualization on judgment and decision-making: a systematic literature review," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 73(1), pages 167-214, February.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Lynn Frewer & Chaya Howard & Richard Shepherd, 1998. "The influence of initial attitudes on responses to communication about genetic engineering in food production," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 15(1), pages 15-30, March.
    4. Minnich, Aljoscha & Roggenkamp, Hauke & Lange, Andreas, 2024. "Ambiguity attitudes and surprises: Experimental evidence on communicating new information within a large population sample," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Branden B. Johnson, 1999. "Ethical Issues in Risk Communication: Continuing the Discussion," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 335-348, June.
    7. Branden B. Johnson & Adam M. Finkel, 2016. "Public Perceptions of Regulatory Costs, Their Uncertainty and Interindividual Distribution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1148-1170, June.
    8. Heiman, Amir & Lowengart, Oded, 2011. "The effects of information about health hazards in food on consumers' choice process," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 140-147, May.
    9. David Fang & Chen-Ling Fang & Bi-Kun Tsai & Li-Chi Lan & Wen-Shan Hsu, 2012. "Relationships among Trust in Messages, Risk Perception, and Risk Reduction Preferences Based upon Avian Influenza in Taiwan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-16, August.
    10. Benedikt Becsi & Daniela Hohenwallner-Ries & Torsten Grothmann & Andrea Prutsch & Tobias Huber & Herbert Formayer, 2020. "Towards better informed adaptation strategies: co-designing climate change impact maps for Austrian regions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 393-411, February.
    11. Robert Goble & Vicki Bier & Ortwin Renn, 2018. "Two Types of Vigilance Are Essential to Effective Hazard Management: Maintaining Both Together Is Difficult," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1795-1801, September.
    12. Albert Mogambi Moinani & Margaret Nasambu Barasa, 2021. "Is Disease War? A Critical Analysis of the Covid-19 Discourse in Kenya," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 5(3), pages 411-417, March.
    13. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    14. Peter D. Lunn & Cameron A. Belton & Ciarán Lavin & Féidhlim P. McGowan & Shane Timmons & Deirdre A. Robertson, 2020. "Using behavioral science to help fight the Coronavirus," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(1).
    15. 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.
    16. Daiki Kishishita & Hans H. Tung & Charlotte Wang, 2024. "Ambiguity and self-protection: evidence from social distancing under the COVID-19 pandemic," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 75(2), pages 269-300, April.
    17. Creed Tumlison & Rachael M. Moyer & Geoboo Song, 2017. "The Origin and Role of Trust in Local Policy Elites’ Perceptions of High‐Voltage Power Line Installations in the State of Arkansas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(5), pages 1018-1036, May.
    18. Karl Schlag & James Tremewan, 2021. "Simple belief elicitation: An experimental evaluation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 62(2), pages 137-155, April.
    19. 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.
    20. David M. Hassenzahl, 2006. "Implications of Excessive Precision for Risk Comparisons: Lessons from the Past Four Decades," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1), pages 265-276, February.

    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:32:y:2012:i:12:p:2055-2070. 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.