Effects of numerical and graphical displays on professed risk-taking behavior.

Stone, Eric R.; Yates, JoAnne; Parker, Andrew M.

doi:10.1037/1076-898x.3.4.243

Cited by 138 publications

(182 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

172

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Given that people frequently make decisions on the basis of such information, this would seem to suggest that the within-the-bar bias should have downstream effects on decision making about the substance of the depicted data. Previous research has examined the effects of graphical displays on risk perception, but these studies have to date focused on the demonstration that the use of pictorial graphs at all can increase risk avoidance relative to numerical information (Chua, Yates, & Shah, 2006;Stone et al, 2003;Stone, Yates, & Parker, 1997). Here, in contrast, we sought to determine whether the specific way in which bar graphs are naturally interpreted-that is, the within-the-bar bias-can also influence subsequent decision making in ways that could matter.…”

Section: Experiments 6: Downstream Influences On Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 97%

Bar graphs depicting averages are perceptually misinterpreted: The within-the-bar bias

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perhaps the most common method of depicting data, in both scientific communication and popular media, is the bar graph. Bar graphs often depict measures of central tendency, but they do so asymmetrically: A mean, for example, is depicted not by a point, but by the edge of a bar that originates from a single axis. Here we show that this graphical asymmetry gives rise to a corresponding cognitive asymmetry. When viewers are shown a bar depicting a mean value and are then asked to judge the likelihood of a particular data point being part of its underlying distribution, viewers judge points that fall within the bar as being more likely than points equidistant from the mean, but outside the bar-as if the bar somehow "contained" the relevant data. This "within-the-bar bias" occurred (a) for graphs with and without error bars, (b) for bars that originated from both lower and upper axes, (c) for test points with equally extreme numeric labels, (d) both from memory (when the bar was no longer visible) and in online perception (while the bar was visible during the judgment), (e) both within and between subjects, and (f) in populations including college students, adults from the broader community, and online samples. We posit that this bias may arise due to principles of object perception, and we show how it has downstream implications for decision making.

show abstract

Section: Experiments 6: Downstream Influences On Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 97%

Bar graphs depicting averages are perceptually misinterpreted: The within-the-bar bias

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One manner in which perceptual salience could vary is the graphical format in which information is presented (Stone, Yates, and Parker 1997;Stone et al 2003). Risk information can be presented either as a ratio (number of people harmed / total number of people at risk of harm) or using graphical formats that highlight the foreground aspect (i.e., numerator) or the background aspect (i.e., denominator).…”

Section: Perceptual Saliencementioning

confidence: 99%

Years, Months, and Days versus 1, 12, and 365: The Influence of Units versus Numbers

Monga

Bagchi

2011

Journal of Consumer Research

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quantitative changes may be conveyed to consumers using small units (e.g., change in delivery time from 7 to 21 days) or large units (1–3 weeks). Numerosity research suggests that changes are magnified by small (vs. large) units because a change from 7 to 21 (vs. 1–3) seems larger. We introduce a reverse effect that we term unitosity: changes are magnified by large (vs. small) units because a change of weeks (vs. days) seems larger. We show that numerosity reverses to unitosity when relative salience shifts from numbers to units (study 1). Then, arguing that numbers (units) represent a low-level (high-level) construal of quantities, we show this reversal when mind-set shifts from concrete to abstract (studies 2–4). These results emerge for several quantities—height of buildings, time of maturity of financial instruments, weight of nutrients, and length of tables—and have significant implications for theory and practice.

show abstract

“…We used circles to represent the number of terror suspects because previous research (Gaissmaier et al, 2012;Stone, Yates, & Parker, 1997) did not find differences in effects of arrays with faces compared to more abstract symbols. For half of the participants, black circles represented the terror suspects who were not correctly identified by the technique, and white circles were used to represent this number for the other half.…”

Section: Design and Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

On avoiding framing effects in experienced decision makers

García‐Retamero

Dhami

2013

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study aimed to (a) demonstrate the effect of positive–negative framing on experienced criminal justice decision makers, (b) examine the debiasing effect of visually structured risk messages, and (c) investigate whether risk perceptions mediate the debiasing effect of visual aids on decision making. In two phases, 60 senior police officers estimated the accuracy of a counterterrorism technique in identifying whether a known terror suspect poses an imminent danger and decided whether they would recommend the technique to policy makers. Officers also rated their confidence in this recommendation. When information about the effectiveness of the counterterrorism technique was presented in a numerical format, officers' perceptions of accuracy and recommendation decisions were susceptible to the framing effect: The technique was perceived to be more accurate and was more likely to be recommended when its effectiveness was presented in a positive than in a negative frame. However, when the information was represented visually using icon arrays, there were no such framing effects. Finally, perceptions of accuracy mediated the debiasing effect of visual aids on recommendation decisions. We offer potential explanations for the debiasing effect of visual aids and implications for communicating risk to experienced, professional decision makers.

show abstract

Effects of numerical and graphical displays on professed risk-taking behavior.

Cited by 138 publications

References 27 publications

Bar graphs depicting averages are perceptually misinterpreted: The within-the-bar bias

Bar graphs depicting averages are perceptually misinterpreted: The within-the-bar bias

Years, Months, and Days versus 1, 12, and 365: The Influence of Units versus Numbers

On avoiding framing effects in experienced decision makers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About