Visual display size and shape impact the accuracy of US adults' health-risk estimates

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2023-07-28 DOI:10.1002/bdm.2341
Charles J. Fitzsimmons, Lauren Woodbury, Jennifer M. Taber, Lauren K. Schiller, Marta K. Mielicki, Pooja G. Sidney, Karin G. Coifman, Clarissa A. Thompson
{"title":"Visual display size and shape impact the accuracy of US adults' health-risk estimates","authors":"Charles J. Fitzsimmons,&nbsp;Lauren Woodbury,&nbsp;Jennifer M. Taber,&nbsp;Lauren K. Schiller,&nbsp;Marta K. Mielicki,&nbsp;Pooja G. Sidney,&nbsp;Karin G. Coifman,&nbsp;Clarissa A. Thompson","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2341","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Health risks, when presented as ratios (e.g., two out of seven people), are challenging to understand, but visual displays can foster accurate understanding. We conducted three experiments to test how characteristics of numbers (Experiment 1), icon arrays (Experiments 1, 2, and 3), and number lines (Experiments 1 and 3) influenced people's ability to accurately estimate the risk of experiencing side effects. Participants in each experiment saw smaller- (e.g., 2 out of 7) and larger-component (e.g., 264 out of 924) equivalent ratios in one of three conditions: with number lines only, with icon arrays only, or in the form of Arabic numerals with no accompanying visual. We found that risk estimates were more accurate when presented in 10 × 10 icon arrays, long horizontal 1 × 99 arrays, or number lines. We theorize that hypothetical risks can be estimated more accurately when the display affords easy translation to a percentage.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"36 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.2341","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Health risks, when presented as ratios (e.g., two out of seven people), are challenging to understand, but visual displays can foster accurate understanding. We conducted three experiments to test how characteristics of numbers (Experiment 1), icon arrays (Experiments 1, 2, and 3), and number lines (Experiments 1 and 3) influenced people's ability to accurately estimate the risk of experiencing side effects. Participants in each experiment saw smaller- (e.g., 2 out of 7) and larger-component (e.g., 264 out of 924) equivalent ratios in one of three conditions: with number lines only, with icon arrays only, or in the form of Arabic numerals with no accompanying visual. We found that risk estimates were more accurate when presented in 10 × 10 icon arrays, long horizontal 1 × 99 arrays, or number lines. We theorize that hypothetical risks can be estimated more accurately when the display affords easy translation to a percentage.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
视觉显示尺寸和形状影响美国成年人健康风险估计的准确性
健康风险以比例(例如,七个人中有两个)呈现时,很难理解,但视觉显示可以促进准确理解。我们进行了三个实验来测试数字(实验1)、图标数组(实验1、2和3)和数轴(实验1和3)的特征如何影响人们准确估计经历副作用风险的能力。在以下三种情况下,每个实验的参与者都看到了较小(例如,7人中有2人)和较大(例如,924人中有264人)的等效比率:只有数轴,只有图标数组,或者以阿拉伯数字的形式没有伴随的视觉效果。我们发现,当以10 × 10图标阵列、长水平1 × 99阵列或数列呈现时,风险估计更为准确。我们的理论是,假设的风险可以更准确地估计,当显示提供了一个容易转换成百分比。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral Decision Making is a multidisciplinary journal with a broad base of content and style. It publishes original empirical reports, critical review papers, theoretical analyses and methodological contributions. The Journal also features book, software and decision aiding technique reviews, abstracts of important articles published elsewhere and teaching suggestions. The objective of the Journal is to present and stimulate behavioral research on decision making and to provide a forum for the evaluation of complementary, contrasting and conflicting perspectives. These perspectives include psychology, management science, sociology, political science and economics. Studies of behavioral decision making in naturalistic and applied settings are encouraged.
期刊最新文献
Prescribing Agreement Improves Judgments and Decisions Issue Information Do We Use Relatively Bad (Algorithmic) Advice? The Effects of Performance Feedback and Advice Representation on Advice Usage Evaluation of Extended Decision Outcomes Diffusion of Responsibility for Actions With Advice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1