Premium
Designing Graphs to Communicate Risks: Understanding How the Choice of Graphical Format Influences Decision Making
Author(s) -
Stone Eric R.,
Bruin Wändi,
Wilkins Abigail M.,
Boker Emily M.,
MacDonald Gibson Jacqueline
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
risk analysis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.972
H-Index - 130
eISSN - 1539-6924
pISSN - 0272-4332
DOI - 10.1111/risa.12660
Subject(s) - graphical user interface , computer science , graphical model , bar chart , outcome (game theory) , redevelopment , risk perception , human–computer interaction , psychology , artificial intelligence , mathematics , statistics , engineering , civil engineering , mathematical economics , programming language , neuroscience , perception
Previous research suggests that the choice of graphical format for communicating risk information affects both understanding of the risk magnitude and the likelihood of acting to decrease risk. However, the mechanisms through which these effects work are poorly understood. To explore these mechanisms using a real‐world scenario, we examined the relative impact of two graphical displays for depicting the risk of exposure to unexploded ammunition during potential land redevelopment. One display depicted only the foreground information graphically (a bar graph of the number of people harmed), and a second depicted the foreground and background graphically (a stacked bar graph representing both the number harmed and at risk). We presented 296 participants with either the foreground‐only or the foreground and background graphical display and measured a broad set of outcome variables, examining (1) the graphical display effect on each of the outcome measures and (2) the pathways by which any display effects work to influence decision making. We found that the foreground‐only graphical display increased perceived likelihood and experienced fear, which produced greater worry, which in turn increased risk aversion. In addition, a positive evaluation of the communication materials increased support for policies related to land redevelopment, whether those policies were risk taking or risk mitigating. Finally, the foreground‐only graphical display decreased understanding of the risk magnitude, showing that approaches to accomplish one risk communication goal (promoting risk‐averse decisions) may do so at the expense of another goal (increasing understanding).