Premium
Examining Insensitivity to Probability in Evidence‐Based Communication of Relative Risks: The Role of Affect and Communication Format
Author(s) -
Heard Claire Louise,
Rakow Tim
Publication year - 2022
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.13862
Subject(s) - affect (linguistics) , risk communication , risk perception , psychology , perception , social psychology , outcome (game theory) , event (particle physics) , computer science , applied psychology , cognitive psychology , risk analysis (engineering) , medicine , mathematics , communication , physics , mathematical economics , quantum mechanics , neuroscience
Affect can influence judgments of event riskiness and use of risk‐related information. Two studies (Ns: 85 and 100) examined the insensitivity‐to‐probability effect—where people discount probability information when scenarios are affect‐rich—applying it to evidence‐informed risk communication. We additionally investigated whether this effect is moderated by format, based on predictions from the evaluability and pattern‐recognition literatures, suggesting that graphical formats may attenuate insensitivity to probability. Participants completed a prior beliefs questionnaire (Study 1), and risk perception booklet (both studies) that presented identical statistical information about the relative risks associated with two scenarios—one with an affect‐rich outcome, the other an affect‐poorer outcome. In Study 1, this was presented graphically. In Study 2, information was presented in one of three formats: written, tabular, or graphical. Participants provided their perceptions of the risk for each scenario at a range of risk‐levels. The affect‐rich scenario was perceived as higher in risk, and, importantly, despite presenting identical relative risk information in both scenarios, was associated with a reduced sensitivity to probability information (both studies). These differences were predicted by participants’ prior beliefs concerning the scenario events (Study 1) and were larger for the single‐item written format than graphical format (Study 2). The findings illustrate that insensitivity to probability information can occur in evidence‐informed risk communications and highlight how communication format can moderate this effect. This interplay between affect and format therefore reflects an important consideration for information designers and researchers.