IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v37y2017i4p612-628.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Designing Graphs to Communicate Risks: Understanding How the Choice of Graphical Format Influences Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Eric R. Stone
  • Wändi Bruine de Bruin
  • Abigail M. Wilkins
  • Emily M. Boker
  • Jacqueline MacDonald Gibson

Abstract

Previous research suggests that the choice of graphical format for communicating risk information affects both understanding of the risk magnitude and the likelihood of acting to decrease risk. However, the mechanisms through which these effects work are poorly understood. To explore these mechanisms using a real‐world scenario, we examined the relative impact of two graphical displays for depicting the risk of exposure to unexploded ammunition during potential land redevelopment. One display depicted only the foreground information graphically (a bar graph of the number of people harmed), and a second depicted the foreground and background graphically (a stacked bar graph representing both the number harmed and at risk). We presented 296 participants with either the foreground‐only or the foreground and background graphical display and measured a broad set of outcome variables, examining (1) the graphical display effect on each of the outcome measures and (2) the pathways by which any display effects work to influence decision making. We found that the foreground‐only graphical display increased perceived likelihood and experienced fear, which produced greater worry, which in turn increased risk aversion. In addition, a positive evaluation of the communication materials increased support for policies related to land redevelopment, whether those policies were risk taking or risk mitigating. Finally, the foreground‐only graphical display decreased understanding of the risk magnitude, showing that approaches to accomplish one risk communication goal (promoting risk‐averse decisions) may do so at the expense of another goal (increasing understanding).

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:4:p:612-628
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12660
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12660
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12660?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. Adrian Edwards & Glyn Elwyn, 1999. "How Should Effectiveness of Risk Communication to Aid Patients' Decisions Be Judged?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(4), pages 428-434, October.
    2. Kunreuther, Howard & Novemsky, Nathan & Kahneman, Daniel, 2001. "Making Low Probabilities Useful," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 103-120, September.
    3. Valerie F. Reyna, 2008. "A Theory of Medical Decision Making and Health: Fuzzy Trace Theory," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(6), pages 850-865, November.
    4. Kirsten J. McCaffery & Ann Dixon & Andrew Hayen & Jesse Jansen & Sian Smith & Judy M. Simpson, 2012. "The Influence of Graphic Display Format on the Interpretations of Quantitative Risk Information among Adults with Lower Education and Literacy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(4), pages 532-544, July.
    5. Rocio Garcia-Retamero & Mirta Galesic & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2010. "Do Icon Arrays Help Reduce Denominator Neglect?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(6), pages 672-684, November.
    6. Jacqueline Anne MacDonald & Mitchell J. Small & M. G. Morgan, 2008. "Explosion Probability of Unexploded Ordnance: Expert Beliefs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 825-841, August.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:1:p:83-89 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Baruch Fischhoff, 1995. "Risk Perception and Communication Unplugged: Twenty Years of Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 137-145, April.
    9. Tian-Yi Hu & Xin-Wen Jiang & Xiaofei Xie & Xiao-Qin Ma & Chao Xu, 2014. "Foreground-background salience effect in traffic risk communication," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(1), pages 83-89, January.
    10. Cara L. Cuite & Neil D. Weinstein & Karen Emmons & Graham Colditz, 2008. "A Test of Numeric Formats for Communicating Risk Probabilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(3), pages 377-384, May.
    11. 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.
    12. Ralph L. Keeney & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 1986. "Improving Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(4), pages 417-424, December.
    13. 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.
    14. Colin F. Camerer & Howard Kunreuther, 1989. "Decision processes for low probability events: Policy implications," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(4), pages 565-592.
    15. Jonathan Baron & John C. Hershey & Howard Kunreuther, 2000. "Determinants of Priority for Risk Reduction: The Role of Worry," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(4), pages 413-428, August.
    16. Lennart Sjöberg, 1998. "Worry and Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 85-93, February.
    17. Angela Fagerlin & Catharine Wang & Peter A. Ubel, 2005. "Reducing the Influence of Anecdotal Reasoning on People’s Health Care Decisions: Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Statistics?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(4), pages 398-405, July.
    18. 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.
    19. Garcia-Retamero, Rocio & Hoffrage, Ulrich, 2013. "Visual representation of statistical information improves diagnostic inferences in doctors and their patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 27-33.
    20. Donald MacGregor, 1991. "Worry Over Technological Activities and Life Concerns," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), pages 315-324, June.
    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. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:2:p:378-399 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Ian G. J. Dawson, 2018. "Assessing the Effects of Information About Global Population Growth on Risk Perceptions and Support for Mitigation and Prevention Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2222-2241, October.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Cameron Brick & Alexandra L. J. Freeman & Steven Wooding & William J. Skylark & Theresa M. Marteau & David J. Spiegelhalter, 2018. "Winners and losers: communicating the potential impacts of policies," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-13, December.
    6. 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.
    7. Paul C. Price & Grace A. Carlock & Sarah Crouse & Mariana Vargas Arciga, 2022. "Effects of icon arrays to communicate risk in a repeated risky decision-making task," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 17(2), pages 378-399, March.
    8. Christoph Scheingraber & Martin A. Käser, 2019. "The Impact of Portfolio Location Uncertainty on Probabilistic Seismic Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(3), pages 695-712, 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. Carmen Keller & Michael Siegrist & Heinz Gutscher, 2006. "The Role of the Affect and Availability Heuristics in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 631-639, June.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Dirk Grasmück & Roland W. Scholz, 2005. "Risk Perception of Heavy Metal Soil Contamination by High‐Exposed and Low‐Exposed Inhabitants: The Role of Knowledge and Emotional Concerns," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 611-622, June.
    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.
    6. Ian G. J. Dawson & Johnnie E. V. Johnson & Michelle A. Luke, 2013. "Helping Individuals to Understand Synergistic Risks: An Assessment of Message Contents Depicting Mechanistic and Probabilistic Concepts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(5), pages 851-865, May.
    7. Joakim Sundh, 2024. "Human behavior in the context of low-probability high-impact events," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, December.
    8. Aven, Terje, 2018. "Perspectives on the nexus between good risk communication and high scientific risk analysis quality," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 290-296.
    9. Floris Goerlandt & Jie Li & Genserik Reniers, 2020. "The Landscape of Risk Communication Research: A Scientometric Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-31, May.
    10. Christina Kreuzmair & Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller, 2017. "Does Iconicity in Pictographs Matter? The Influence of Iconicity and Numeracy on Information Processing, Decision Making, and Liking in an Eye‐Tracking Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 546-556, March.
    11. 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.
    12. Christina Kreuzmair & Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller, 2016. "High Numerates Count Icons and Low Numerates Process Large Areas in Pictographs: Results of an Eye‐Tracking Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1599-1614, August.
    13. de Jong, Piet & Tickle, Leonie & Xu, Jianhui, 2020. "A more meaningful parameterization of the Lee–Carter model," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 1-8.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:3:p:237-245 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Howard Kunreuther & Mark Pauly, 2006. "Rules Rather Than Discretion: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina," NBER Working Papers 12503, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Andrea Morone & Ozlem Ozdemir, 2006. "Valuing Protection against Low Probability, High Loss Risks: Experimental Evidence," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2006-34, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    17. Gianmarco León & Edward Miguel, 2017. "Risky Transportation Choices and the Value of a Statistical Life," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(1), pages 202-228, January.
    18. Andree Ehlert & Jan Seidel & Ursula Weisenfeld, 2020. "Trouble on my mind: the effect of catastrophic events on people’s worries," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 951-975, August.
    19. Matthew D. Rablen, 2023. "Loss Aversion, Risk Aversion, and the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function," Working Papers 2023013, The University of Sheffield, Department of Economics.
    20. 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.
    21. Garcia-Retamero, Rocio & Hoffrage, Ulrich, 2013. "Visual representation of statistical information improves diagnostic inferences in doctors and their patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 27-33.

    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:37:y:2017:i:4:p:612-628. 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.