The Effect of Different Graphical and Numerical Likelihood Formats on Perception of Likelihood and Choice

Jurriaan P. Oudhoff and Daniëlle R. M. Timmermans

Medical Decision Making, 2015, vol. 35, issue 4, 487-500

Abstract: Background. Quantitative risk information plays an important role in decision making about health. This study focuses on commonly used numerical and graphical formats and examines their effect on perception of different likelihoods and choice preferences. Methods. An experimental study was conducted with 192 participants, who evaluated 2 sets of 4 lotteries. Numerical formats to describe likelihood varied systematically between participants (X%, X-in-100, or 1-in-X). The effect of graphic formats (bar charts, icon charts) was assessed as a within-subjects factor. Dependent measures included perceived likelihood, choice preferences about participating in the lottery, and processing times. Results. Numerical likelihoods presented as 1-in-X were processed fastest and were perceived as conveying larger likelihoods than the X-in-100 and percentages formats (mean response times in seconds: 5.65 v. 7.31 and 6.50; mean rating on a 1–9 scale: 4.38 v. 3.30 and 3.31, respectively). The 1-in-X format also evoked a stronger willingness to participate in a lottery than the 2 other numerical formats. The effect of adding graphs on perceived likelihood was moderated by numerical aptitude. Graphs reduced ratings of perceived likelihood of participants with lower numeracy, while there was no overall effect for participants with higher numeracy. Conclusion. Perception of likelihood differs significantly depending on the numerical format used. The 1-in-X format yields higher perceived likelihoods and it appears to be the easiest format to interpret. Graphs primarily affect perception of likelihood of people with lower numerical aptitude. These effects should be taken into account when discussing medical risks with patients.

Keywords: risk communication; risk perception; numerical risk formats; graphical risk formats; choice (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2015
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X15576487 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:35:y:2015:i:4:p:487-500

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X15576487

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().