Salience Versus Proportional Reasoning: Rethinking the Mechanism Behind Graphical Display Effects. (2nd January 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Stone, Eric R.; Reeder, Emily C.; Parillo, Jonathan; Long, Cynthia; Walb, LeeAnn
• Is Part Of: Journal of behavioral decision making. Volume 31:Number 4(2018)
• Page Start: 473
• Page End: 486
• Publication Date: 2018-01-02
• Subjects: risk communication -- graphs -- proportional reasoning -- risk magnitudes -- display formats -- risk aversion; Decision making -- Periodicals; Managerial economics -- Periodicals; Behavior -- Periodicals; Decision Making -- Periodicals; Prise de décision -- Périodiques; Économie d'entreprise -- Périodiques; 153.83
• DOI: 10.1002/bdm.2051
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0894-3257

Abstract

Abstract: Two experiments examined predictions from two separate explanations for previously observed display effects for communicating low‐probability risks: foreground:background salience and proportional reasoning. According to foreground:background salience, people's risk perceptions are based on the relative salience of the foreground (number of people harmed) versus the background (number of people at risk), such that calling attention to the background makes the risk seem smaller. Conversely, the proportional reasoning explanation states that what matters is whether the respondent attends to the proportion, which conveys how small the risk is. In Experiment 1, we made the background more salient via color and bolding; in contrast to the foreground:background salience prediction, this manipulation did not influence participants' risk aversion. In Experiment 2, we separately manipulated whether the foreground and the background were displayed graphically or numerically. In keeping with the proportional reasoning hypothesis, there was an interaction whereby participants given formats that displayed the foreground and background in the same modality (graphs or numbers, thereby making the proportion easier to form) saw the probability as smaller and were less risk averse than participants given the information in different modalities. There was also a main effect of displaying the background graphically, providing some support for foreground:background salience. In total, this work suggests that the proportional reasoning account provides a good explanation of many display effects related to communicating low‐probability risks, although there is some role for foreground:background salience as well. Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.