A Test of Numeric Formats for Communicating Risk Probabilities

Cuite, Cara L.; Weinstein, Neil D.; Emmons, Karen M.; Colditz, Graham A.

doi:10.1177/0272989x08315246

Cited by 93 publications

(103 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…7 Further, recent empirical and theoretical work suggests that the use of frequency formats alone is not sufficient to improve reasoning (Reyna & Brainerd, 2008; see also Cuite, Weinstein, Emmons, & Colditz, 2008). In perhaps the most direct test of this issue, Sloman et al (2003) tested the frequency explanation against the nested-sets hypothesis, which states that any manipulation that leads to a correct representation of set structure causes improved performance.…”

Section: Frequency Versus Probability Formatsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Demonstrating and eliminating the aggregation effect in physical skill tasks

Stone

Rittmayer

Murray

et al. 2010

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Confidence judgments can be elicited in multiple ways. One of these procedures is to provide confidence judgments regarding each of a number of cases (individual judgments). A second procedure is to provide confidence judgments about a set of items (an aggregate judgment). Much research has demonstrated an aggregation effect-that individual judgments are more confident than aggregate judgmentswithin the cognitive knowledge domain. However, this effect has not previously been investigated with physical performance skill tasks. In three experiments, participants gave individual and aggregate judgments regarding the number of successful tosses they would make in either a ring toss, ping-pong toss, or basketball toss task. In keeping with the aggregation effect, individual judgments were more confident than were aggregate judgments of success. Additionally, we eliminated the aggregation effect in Experiments 2 and 3 by employing a case-specific base rate manipulation. Consistent with previous research with cognitive tasks, these results suggest that individual confidence judgments for physical skill tasks are determined primarily by characteristics associated with the individual case to be judged, whereas aggregate confidence judgments are determined by a more general evaluation of one's ability in the domain.

show abstract

Section: Frequency Versus Probability Formatsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Demonstrating and eliminating the aggregation effect in physical skill tasks

Stone

Rittmayer

Murray

et al. 2010

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3 More recently, Cuite and coauthors showed that people presented with statistics using the 1-in-X format had significantly greater difficulty doing basic mathematical operations (e.g., doubling the risk) than those presented with other formats. 4 Use of 1-in-X formats is not universal, however. Many health communications use what Pighin and colleagues call N-in-X*N formats that convert the ratio to have round number denominators (e.g., 100, 1000, or 10 000).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Time to Retire the 1-in-X Risk Format

Zikmund‐Fisher

2011

Med Decis Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Participants may have answered differently if directly asked to give their estimated lifetime risk as a percentage. Additionally, there is data to suggest that natural frequency may be a more accurate way to elicit numeric information, however this theory could not be assessed using the data available from this study [40,41].…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 86%

Is There a Cancer Knowledge Paradox? Risk Perception and Knowledge of Breast and Colon Cancer in a Diverse Population

Lang¹

2014

JCPCR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The accuracy of cancer risk perception has implications for preventive behaviors. Data shows women overestimate their numeric risks. Breast cancer's media presence is highly visible, perhaps increasing knowledge but inflating risk perceptions. This study explores relationships between breast cancer (BC) and colon cancer (CC) knowledge and numeric risk perceptions among women. We hypothesize that general knowledge of BC will be high relative to CC, but risk perception for BC will be less accurate. Methods:Risk perception and knowledge data was collected from 490 female patients recruited for the Kin Fact study from a Women's Health Clinic. Women completed baseline surveys and CA Gene software was used to calculate actual lifetime risk for BC and CC. Correlations, t-tests and linear regressions were used for analysis.Results: Women averaged 33 years old, and 59% were African American. Women overestimated their numeric risk for both, but the mean BC overestimation (29%) was significantly larger than CC (19%). Average knowledge scores for BC were also significantly higher than CC. Compared to knowledge about CC, women who had greater knowledge of BC also were more inaccurate in terms of their perceived numeric risk (r=-0.126, p=0.006). This finding remained significant controlling for age, race and genetic literacy. Conclusion:Results endorse an apparently paradoxical effect that compared with CC; women with increased knowledge of BC have less accurate risk perception for BC. Inaccuracies in perceived risk can affect psychosocial well-being and adherence to screening recommendations. Findings reveal need for increasing knowledge without increasing risk misperceptions.

show abstract

A Test of Numeric Formats for Communicating Risk Probabilities

Abstract: Percentage and frequency formats facilitate performance of simple operations on risk probabilities compared with the 1-in-n format, which should usually be avoided.

Cited by 93 publications

References 17 publications

Demonstrating and eliminating the aggregation effect in physical skill tasks

Demonstrating and eliminating the aggregation effect in physical skill tasks

Time to Retire the 1-in-X Risk Format

Is There a Cancer Knowledge Paradox? Risk Perception and Knowledge of Breast and Colon Cancer in a Diverse Population

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About