IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v27y2007i1p34-43.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Further Insight into the Perception of Quantitative Information: Judgments of Gist in Treatment Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Deb Feldman-Stewart

    (Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Cancer Research Institute, Department of Oncology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, deb.feldman-stewart@krcc.on.ca)

  • Michael D. Brundage

    (Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Cancer Research Institute, Department of Oncology, Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada)

  • Vladimir Zotov

    (Department of Psychology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada)

Abstract

Purpose. To compare relative accuracy and relative response times (RTs) as well as impact of foreground and background colors in a treatment decision context of judging larger/smaller when the following elements are added to the graphics studied previously: 1) a number (the displayed percentage), 2) a referent scale, and 3) a number and a referent scale. Method. An experiment compared pie charts, vertical bars, horizontal bars, digits, systematic ovals, and random ovals. On each trial, participants saw 2 percentages (in 1 format) and were asked to choose the larger chance of survival or the smaller chance of side effects. Outcomes were errors and RT. Formats were either black and white or blue and yellow; background color was either white or blue. Participants were 216 volunteers from the community older than 50 years. Results. Formats with a number produced the same relative errors and relative RT as the formats with a number and scale. Formats with only a scale, however, shifted relative performance: Errors increased with more difficult formats (pie charts and random ovals by 3%-4% v. ∼ 1% with other formats), but RT decreased with easier formats (vertical bars, horizontal bars, and systematic ovals decreased 100-200 ms v. an increase of 0-300 ms with other formats). Vertical bars with scales were the fastest and most accurately processed. Neither foreground nor background color had any impact on either outcome. Conclusions. For supporting older people’s judgments of relative extent, risk information is best presented using vertical bars with a scale; the format systematic ovals with a scale are among the next most easily processed.

Suggested Citation

  • Deb Feldman-Stewart & Michael D. Brundage & Vladimir Zotov, 2007. "Further Insight into the Perception of Quantitative Information: Judgments of Gist in Treatment Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(1), pages 34-43, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:1:p:34-43
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X06297101
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X06297101
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X06297101?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Martin Baekgaard & Nicola Belle & Søren Serritzlew & Mariafrancesca Sicilia & Ileana Steccolini, 2019. "Performance information in politics: How framing, format, and rhetoric matter to politicians’ preferences," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 2(2).
    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. Schonlau Matthias & Peters Ellen, 2012. "Comprehension of Graphs and Tables Depend on the Task: Empirical Evidence from Two Web-Based Studies," Statistics, Politics and Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-35, August.
    6. 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.

    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:27:y:2007:i:1:p:34-43. 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.