IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v33y2013i5p818-837.html

The Influence of Uncertain Map Features on Risk Beliefs and Perceived Ambiguity for Maps of Modeled Cancer Risk from Air Pollution

Author

Listed:
  • Dolores J. Severtson
  • Jeffrey D. Myers

Abstract

Maps are often used to convey information generated by models, for example, modeled cancer risk from air pollution. The concrete nature of images, such as maps, may convey more certainty than warranted for modeled information. Three map features were selected to communicate the uncertainty of modeled cancer risk: (i) map contours appeared in or out of focus, (ii) one or three colors were used, and (iii) a verbal‐relative or numeric risk expression was used in the legend. Study aims were to assess how these features influenced risk beliefs and the ambiguity of risk beliefs at four assigned map locations that varied by risk level. We applied an integrated conceptual framework to conduct this full factorial experiment with 32 maps that varied by the three dichotomous features and four risk levels; 826 university students participated. Data was analyzed using structural equation modeling. Unfocused contours and the verbal‐relative risk expression generated more ambiguity than their counterparts. Focused contours generated stronger risk beliefs for higher risk levels and weaker beliefs for lower risk levels. Number of colors had minimal influence. The magnitude of risk level, conveyed using incrementally darker shading, had a substantial dose‐response influence on the strength of risk beliefs. Personal characteristics of prior beliefs and numeracy also had substantial influences. Bottom‐up and top‐down information processing suggest why iconic visual features of incremental shading and contour focus had the strongest visual influences on risk beliefs and ambiguity. Variations in contour focus and risk expression show promise for fostering appropriate levels of ambiguity.

Suggested Citation

  • Dolores J. Severtson & Jeffrey D. Myers, 2013. "The Influence of Uncertain Map Features on Risk Beliefs and Perceived Ambiguity for Maps of Modeled Cancer Risk from Air Pollution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(5), pages 818-837, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:33:y:2013:i:5:p:818-837
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01893.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01893.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01893.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. Samuel D. Brody & B. Mitchell Peck & Wesley E. Highfield, 2004. "Examining Localized Patterns of Air Quality Perception in Texas: A Spatial and Statistical Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1561-1574, December.
    2. Paul Slovic, 1999. "Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk‐Assessment Battlefield," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 689-701, August.
    3. Angela Fagerlin & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher & Peter A. Ubel & Aleksandra Jankovic & Holly A. Derry & Dylan M. Smith, 2007. "Measuring Numeracy without a Math Test: Development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 672-680, September.
    4. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    5. Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher & Dylan M. Smith & Peter A. Ubel & Angela Fagerlin, 2007. "Validation of the Subjective Numeracy Scale: Effects of Low Numeracy on Comprehension of Risk Communications and Utility Elicitations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 663-671, September.
    6. Branden B. Johnson, 2003. "Communicating Air Quality Information: Experimental Evaluation of Alternative Formats," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 91-103, February.
    7. Branden B. Johnson, 2008. "Public Views on Drinking Water Standards as Risk Indicators," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1515-1530, December.
    8. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    9. W. Kip Viscusi & Wesley A. Magat & Joel Huber, 1999. "Smoking Status and Public Responses to Ambiguous Scientific Risk Evidence," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 66(2), pages 250-270, October.
    10. 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.
    11. Craig W. Trumbo & Katherine A. McComas & Prathana Kannaovakun, 2007. "Cancer Anxiety and the Perception of Risk in Alarmed Communities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 337-350, April.
    12. Neil D. Weinstein & Peter M. Sandman, 1993. "Some Criteria for Evaluating Risk Messages," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 103-114, February.
    13. Dolores J. Severtson & James E. Burt, 2012. "The Influence of Mapped Hazards on Risk Beliefs: A Proximity‐Based Modeling Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(2), pages 259-280, 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. Simon French & Nikolaos Argyris & Stephanie M. Haywood & Matthew C. Hort & Jim Q. Smith, 2019. "Communicating Geographical Risks in Crisis Management: The Need for Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(1), pages 9-16, January.
    2. Branden B. Johnson, 2018. "Residential Location and Psychological Distance in Americans’ Risk Views and Behavioral Intentions Regarding Zika Virus," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(12), pages 2561-2579, December.
    3. Laura N. Rickard, 2021. "Pragmatic and (or) Constitutive? On the Foundations of Contemporary Risk Communication Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 466-479, March.

    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. 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.
    3. Eoin O'Neill & Finbarr Brereton & Harutyun Shahumyan & J. Peter Clinch, 2016. "The Impact of Perceived Flood Exposure on Flood‐Risk Perception: The Role of Distance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(11), pages 2158-2186, November.
    4. Malcolm P. Cutchin & Kathryn Remmes Martin & Steven V. Owen & James S. Goodwin, 2008. "Concern About Petrochemical Health Risk Before and After a Refinery Explosion," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 589-601, June.
    5. Fasolo, Barbara & Bana e Costa, Carlos A., 2014. "Tailoring value elicitation to decision makers' numeracy and fluency: Expressing value judgments in numbers or words," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 83-90.
    6. Pam A. Mueller & Lawrence M. Solan & John M. Darley, 2012. "When Does Knowledge Become Intent? Perceiving the Minds of Wrongdoers," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 859-892, December.
    7. Yaniv Hanoch & Talya Miron-Shatz & Mary Himmelstein, 2010. "Genetic testing and risk interpretation: How do women understand lifetime risk results?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(2), pages 116-123, April.
    8. Dolores J. Severtson & Jeffrey B. Henriques, 2009. "The Effect of Graphics on Environmental Health Risk Beliefs, Emotions, Behavioral Intentions, and Recall," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(11), pages 1549-1565, November.
    9. Tim Slack & Vanessa Parks & Lynsay Ayer & Andrew M. Parker & Melissa L. Finucane & Rajeev Ramchand, 2020. "Natech or natural? An analysis of hazard perceptions, institutional trust, and future storm worry following Hurricane Harvey," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 102(3), pages 1207-1224, July.
    10. Carina Oedingen & Raf Gestel & Samare P. I. Huls & Georg Granic & Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Jorien Veldwijk, 2025. "Association of medication adherence with treatment preferences: incentivizing truthful self-reporting," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 26(7), pages 1219-1232, September.
    11. Michael J. Weir & Thomas W. Sproul, 2019. "Identifying Drivers of Genetically Modified Seafood Demand: Evidence from a Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-21, July.
    12. Violet Muringai & Ellen Goddard, 2018. "Trust and consumer risk perceptions regarding BSE and chronic wasting disease," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 240-265, March.
    13. Yaniv Hanoch & Jonathan Rolison & Alexandra M. Freund, 2019. "Reaping the Benefits and Avoiding the Risks: Unrealistic Optimism in the Health Domain," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 792-804, April.
    14. Swait, J. & de Bekker-Grob, E.W., 2022. "A discrete choice model implementing gist-based categorization of alternatives, with applications to patient preferences for cancer screening and treatment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    15. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    16. Peter H. Schwartz & Kieran C. O’Doherty & Colene Bentley & Karen K. Schmidt & Michael M. Burgess, 2021. "Layperson Views about the Design and Evaluation of Decision Aids: A Public Deliberation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(5), pages 527-539, July.
    17. Kelsie Raspin & Daisy Nowakowski & Joanne L. Dickinson & Jessica Roydhouse, 2026. "A Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Measures for Individuals Who Underwent Genetic Testing for Heritable Cancer," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 19(2), pages 197-220, March.
    18. 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.
    19. Arnout R. H. Fischer & Aarieke E. I. De Jong & Rob De Jonge & Lynn J. Frewer & Maarten J. Nauta, 2005. "Improving Food Safety in the Domestic Environment: The Need for a Transdisciplinary Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 503-517, June.
    20. Nicolas Eber & Patrick Roger & Tristan Roger, 2024. "Finance and intelligence: An overview of the literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 503-554, April.

    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:33:y:2013:i:5:p:818-837. 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.