Communicating Health Risks to the Public

• Autorzy: James Leonhardt , Robin Keller , Ronald Lembke
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Health risks, such as the probability of experiencing a side effect from a medication, are typically communicated numerically. However, presenting risks in strictly numeric formats is problematic considering that the public often experiences difficulty in comprehending strictly numeric probabilities. To help overcome this problem, Leonhardt and Keller (2018) tested the efficacy of using pictographs to visually present probabilistic information to health consumers. They found that the addition of pictographs alongside numeric probability information increased probability comprehension and lessened the perceived risk of a multiple risk health option. Here, we review relevant work on probability format and build on the general evaluability theory to posit why pictographs may result in lower risk perceptions of multiple risk options. We discuss current limitations in our understanding of how the public perceives multiple risk options, and we highlight opportunities for future research. For instance, we introduce Quick Response (QR) codes as a potential tool to help consumers view health risks in multiple formats on the Internet. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

PL

Zdrowie; Bezpieczeństwo; Ryzyko; Prawdopodobieństwo; COVID-19

EN

Health; Security; Risk; Probability; COVID-19

• Czasopismo: Przegląd Organizacji
• Rocznik: 2021
• Numer: nr 1
• Strony: 39-44

Twórcy

autor

James Leonhardt

• University of Nevada, Reno

autor

Robin Keller

• University of California, Irvine

autor

Ronald Lembke

• University of Nevada, Reno

Bibliografia

• [1] Ancker J.S., Senathirajah Y., Kukafka R., Starren J.B. (2006), Design Features of Graphs in Health Risk Communication: A Systematic Review, "Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association", Vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 608-618.
• [2] Garcia-Retamero R., Galesic M., Gigerenzer G. (2010), Do Icon Arrays Help Reduce Denominator Neglect? "Medical Decision Making", Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 672-684.
• [3] Hawley S.T., Zikmund-Fisher B., Ubel P., Jancovic A., Lucas T., Fagerlin A. (2008), The Impact of the Format of Graphical Presentation on Health-Related Knowledge and Treatment Choices, "Patient Education and Counseling", Vol. 73, No. 3, pp. 448-455.
• [4] Hsee C.K. (1996), The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives, "Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes", Vol. 67, No. 3, pp. 247-257.
• [5] Hsee C.K., Zhang J. (2010), General Evaluability Theory, "Perspectives on Psychological Science", Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 343-355.
• [6] Leonhardt J.M., Keller L.R. (2018), Do Pictographs Affect Probability Comprehension and Risk Perception of Multiple-Risk Communications? "Journal of Consumer Affairs", Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 756-769.
• [7] Leonhardt J.M., Keller L.R., Pechmann C. (2011), Avoiding the Risk of Responsibility by Seeking Uncertainty: Responsibility Aversion and Preference for Indirect Agency when Choosing for Others, "Journal of Consumer Psychology", Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 405-413.
• [8] Loewenstein G.F., Weber E.U., Hsee C.K., Welch N. (2001), Risk as Feelings, "Psychological Bulletin", Vol. 127, No. 2, pp. 267-286.
• [9] Tversky A., Kahneman D. (1981), The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice, "Science", Vol. 211, No. 4481, pp. 453-458.
• [10] Visschers V.H. M., Meertens R.M., Passchier W.W.F., de Vries N.N.K. (2009), Probability Information in Risk Communication: A Review of the Research Literature, "Risk Analysis", Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 267-287.
• [11] Zikmund-Fisher B.J., Fagerlin A., Ubel P. (2004), Is 28% Good or Bad? Evaluability and Preference Reversals in Health Care Decisions, "Medical Decision Making", Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 142-148.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.33141/po.2021.1.05