The 1-in-X effect in perceptions of risk likelihood differences

Suk, Kwanho; Hwang, Sanyoung; Jeong, Yunjoo

doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104131

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are several examples that demonstrate the effect of different numerical formats, such as ratio-bias effect (Denes-Raj et al, 1995) and the 1-in-X effect (Pighin et al, 2011; Sirota & Juanchich, 2019). The latter is a behavioral phenomenon that shows how the 1-in-X format leads to a higher risk perception compared to the percentage format (Sirota et al, 2018; Suk et al, 2022). Even if there are some studies showing that the risk estimation is not always coherent between percentage and 1-in-X format (Cuite et al, 2008; Lee & Mehta, 2003), the literature consistently reports how the information presented in a frequency format affects more strongly the decisions or risky judgments than the same information presented in a percentage or probability format (see Slovic et al, 2000, on the frequency format effect; see Savadori et al, 2023; V.…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk perception and emotions: A psychophysiological study to understand why the numerical format matters.

Dorigoni¹,

Bonini²

2023

Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the COVID-19 pandemic, citizens were exposed to a wealth of information regarding the public health care system. Much of the provided information was numerical, such as number of deaths, infection rates, and number of people in intensive care. Despite this information can be expressed in various equivalent ways, it should not affect risk perception and decision making. To test this hypothesis, the present psychophysiological study aimed to investigate whether equivalent numerical formats such as raw ratio, absolute frequency, 1-in-X ratio, percentage, and probability-influence risk perception and affective response toward COVID-19. We measured risk perception using the Tripartite Model of Risk Perception scale and emotional response using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) scale, along with psychophysiological measures (i.e., electrodermal activity [EDA] and facial expression). Self-protective behaviors were also measured in order to understand if a change in risk perception and emotional response leads to different levels of engagement in these kinds of behaviors. The reported findings indicate that the probability and percentage formats have less impact than the frequency formats. The latter has an impact on affective and experiential risk perception, negative emotions, and EDA. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk perception and emotions: A psychophysiological study to understand why the numerical format matters.

Dorigoni¹,

Bonini²

2023

Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To the best of our knowledge, however, the investigation of the impact of the 1-in-X format has been virtually confined to subjective probability evaluations and behavioral intentions in hypothetical scenarios. A notable exception is the study of Suk et al (2022). In their study, participants were informed that a charity organization was launching two campaigns to supply treatments to neglected individuals suffering from one of two illnesses, with the aim of reducing the mortality rate.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of experimental findings, indeed, speak in favor of what Pighin et al (2011) initially named the 1‐in‐X effect, that is, the tendency to perceive the likelihood of an event as higher when its probability is communicated using a 1‐in‐X ratio (e.g., “1 in 20”) rather than when the same probability is expressed using an N‐in‐NX ratio (e.g., “5 in 100”). Despite varying in effect size (see Jie, 2022; Sirota et al, 2014), such tendency has been repeatedly observed across different populations, languages, outcomes, and contexts (Oudhoff & Timmermans, 2015; Pighin et al, 2011, 2015; Sirota et al, 2014; Sirota et al, 2018; Sirota & Juanchich, 2019; Suk et al, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of the 1‐in‐X numerical format on choices

Pighin,

Bogani,

Davalos

et al. 2023

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 1‐in‐X numerical format (e.g., 1 in 200) has been found to increase subjective probability evaluations and behavioral intentions in hypothetical scenarios compared with the N‐in‐NX format (e.g., 5 in 1000). However, it remains unclear whether this format can also bias choices between truly incentivized options. In four online studies (N = 1039), participants were presented with a small endowment (i.e., 1£) and an actual choice between two options: a sure loss of a part of such endowment and a lottery with the chance to lose the entire endowment, presented using either the 1‐in‐X or the N‐in‐NX format. In Studies 1–3, where the two options were equivalent in expected monetary value (EV) and the lottery was described with varying degrees of concreteness, participants preferred the lottery option to a lesser extent when the chance of losing the endowment was presented using the 1‐in‐X format compared with the N‐in‐NX format. The same effect was replicated in Study 4a when the lottery option had a higher EV than the sure loss, showing that the 1‐in‐X effect can also lead individuals to deviate from maximizing EV. However, the effect vanished in Study 4b when the difference in EV between the two options increased. Implications for risk communication and a possible interpretation of the results are discussed accordingly.

show abstract

“There is a 1 in 10 chance of catching Ebola”: the 1-in-X bias in probability judgment is independent of outcome severity

Clelland,

Haigh

2024

Journal of Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 1-in-X effect in perceptions of risk likelihood differences

Cited by 4 publications

References 28 publications

Risk perception and emotions: A psychophysiological study to understand why the numerical format matters.

Risk perception and emotions: A psychophysiological study to understand why the numerical format matters.

The effect of the 1‐in‐X numerical format on choices

“There is a 1 in 10 chance of catching Ebola”: the 1-in-X bias in probability judgment is independent of outcome severity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About