IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v28y2008i3p377-384.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Test of Numeric Formats for Communicating Risk Probabilities

Author

Listed:
  • Cara L. Cuite

    (Food Policy Institute, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, cuite@aesop.rutgers.edu)

  • Neil D. Weinstein

    (Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoenix)

  • Karen Emmons

    (Harvard School of Public Health, Dana Farber Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts)

  • Graham Colditz

    (Alvin J. Site-man Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO)

Abstract

Background. Because people frequently encounter information about the probability of health risks, there is a need for research to help identify the best formats for presenting these probabilities. Methods. Three waves of participants were recruited from visitors to a cancer-related Internet site. Participants were presented with a hypothetical scenario that required them to perform 2 mathematical operations of the types that might be encountered in discussions of risk. Each wave encountered different operations. The operations used were compare, halve, triple, add, sequence, and tradeoff. Three numeric formats for communicating risk likelihoods were tested: percentages (e.g., 12%), frequencies (e.g., 12 in 100), and 1 in n (e.g., 1 in 8), and many levels of risk magnitude were crossed with the 3 formats. Results. The total sample of 16,133 individuals represented an overall participation rate of 36.1%. Although the relative performance of the formats varied by operation, aggregated across operations, the percentage and frequency formats had higher overall accuracy rates than the 1-in-n format (57% and 55% v. 45%, respectively). Participants with less education, African Americans, Hispanics, and women had more difficulty with the mathematical operations. Discussion. Percentage and frequency formats facilitate performance of simple operations on risk probabilities compared with the 1-in-n format, which should usually be avoided.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:28:y:2008:i:3:p:377-384
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08315246
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X08315246
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X08315246?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. Michael Siegrist, 1997. "Communicating Low Risk Magnitudes: Incidence Rates Expressed as Frequency Versus Rates Expressed as Probability," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 507-510, August.
    2. Steven Woloshin & Lisa M. Schwartz & Stephanie Byram & Baruch Fischhoff & H. Gilbert Welch, 2000. "A New Scale for Assessing Perceptions of Chance," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(3), pages 298-307, July.
    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. Milou Kievik & Ellen F.J. ter Huurne & Jan M. Gutteling, 2012. "The action suited to the word? Use of the framework of risk information seeking to understand risk-related behaviors," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 131-147, February.
    2. Suk, Kwanho & Hwang, Sanyoung & Jeong, Yunjoo, 2022. "The 1-in-X effect in perceptions of risk likelihood differences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    3. Biswas, Dipayan & Pechmann, Cornelia, 2012. "What do these clinical trial results mean? How product efficacy judgments are affected by data partitioning, framing, and quantification," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 117(2), pages 341-350.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:7:p:528-546 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Michael H. Birnbaum & Kathleen Johnson & Jay-Lee Longbottom, 2008. "Tests of Cumulative Prospect Theory with graphical displays of probability," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3(7), pages 528-546, October.
    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. 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.
    8. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. Carmen Keller & Michael Siegrist, 2009. "Effect of Risk Communication Formats on Risk Perception Depending on Numeracy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(4), pages 483-490, July.
    3. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Andrew Parker & Jürgen Maurer, 2011. "Assessing small non-zero perceptions of chance: The case of H1N1 (swine) flu risks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 145-159, April.
    4. 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.
    5. Bram Oosterbroek & Joop de Kraker & Maud M. T. E. Huynen & Pim Martens, 2024. "Integrated Assessment of Health Benefits and Burdens of Urban Greenspace Designs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-18, August.
    6. Carman, K.G. & Kooreman, P., 2010. "Flu Shots, Mammogram, and the Perception of Probabilities," Other publications TiSEM fba970b8-6fc7-449b-acf9-9, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    7. Peter Fraser‐Mackenzie & Ming‐Chien Sung & Johnnie E.V. Johnson, 2014. "Toward an Understanding of the Influence of Cultural Background and Domain Experience on the Effects of Risk‐Pricing Formats on Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(10), pages 1846-1869, October.
    8. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Katherine G. Carman, 2018. "Measuring Subjective Probabilities: The Effect of Response Mode on the Use of Focal Responses, Validity, and Respondents’ Evaluations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2128-2143, October.
    9. Katherine Carman & Peter Kooreman, 2014. "Probability perceptions and preventive health care," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 43-71, August.
    10. Branden B. Johnson, 2004. "Varying Risk Comparison Elements: Effects on Public Reactions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 103-114, February.
    11. Esther Lukasiewicz & Claude Fischler & Michel Setbon & Antoine Flahault, 2002. "French general practitioners didn't fear the millennium bug," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(3), pages 191-194, July.
    12. W.J. Wouter Botzen & Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2015. "Divergence between individual perceptions and objective indicators of tail risks: Evidence from floodplain residents in New York City," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(4), pages 365-385, July.
    13. Rebecca Hess & Vivianne H.M. Visschers & Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller, 2011. "How do people perceive graphical risk communication? The role of subjective numeracy," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1), pages 47-61, January.
    14. Stone, Eric R. & Sieck, Winston R. & Bull, Benita E. & Frank Yates, J. & Parks, Stephanie C. & Rush, Carolyn J., 2003. "Foreground:background salience: Explaining the effects of graphical displays on risk avoidance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 19-36, January.
    15. Baruch Fischhoff & Gabrielle Wong‐Parodi & Dana Rose Garfin & E. Alison Holman & Roxane Cohen Silver, 2018. "Public Understanding of Ebola Risks: Mastering an Unfamiliar Threat," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 71-83, January.
    16. Carmen Keller & Michael Siegrist & Vivianne Visschers, 2009. "Effect of Risk Ladder Format on Risk Perception in High‐ and Low‐Numerate Individuals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(9), pages 1255-1264, September.
    17. Guofang Zhai & Takeshi Suzuki, 2008. "Effects of Risk Representation and Scope on Willingness to Pay for Reduced Risks: Evidence from Tokyo Bay, Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 513-522, April.
    18. Ti-Ching Peng, 2021. "The effect of hazard shock and disclosure information on property and land prices: a machine-learning assessment in the case of Japan," Review of Regional Research: Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaft, Springer;Gesellschaft für Regionalforschung (GfR), vol. 41(1), pages 1-32, February.
    19. Pamela Giustinelli & Charles F Manski & Francesca Molinari, 2022. "Precise or Imprecise Probabilities? Evidence from Survey Response Related to Late-Onset Dementia," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 20(1), pages 187-221.
    20. Marilyn M. Schapira & Susan L. Davids & Timothy L. McAuliffe & Ann B. Nattinger, 2004. "Agreement Between Scales in the Measurement of Breast Cancer Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 665-673, June.

    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:28:y:2008:i:3:p:377-384. 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: 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.