ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND
Patients must be informed about risks before any treatment can be implemented. Yet serious problems in communicating these risks occur because of framing effects.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the effects of different information frames when communicating health risks to people with high and low numeracy and determine whether these effects can be countered or eliminated by using different types of visual displays (i.e., icon arrays, horizontal bars, vertical bars, or pies).
DESIGN
Experiment on probabilistic, nationally representative US (n = 492) and German (n = 495) samples, conducted in summer 2008.
OUTCOME MEASURES
Participants’ risk perceptions of the medical risk expressed in positive (i.e., chances of surviving after surgery) and negative (i.e., chances of dying after surgery) terms.
KEY RESULTS
Although low‐numeracy people are more susceptible to framing than those with high numeracy, use of visual aids is an effective method to eliminate its effects. However, not all visual aids were equally effective: pie charts and vertical and horizontal bars almost completely removed the effect of framing. Icon arrays, however, led to a smaller decrease in the framing effect.
CONCLUSIONS
Difficulties with understanding numerical information often do not reside in the mind, but in the representation of the problem.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M. Risk communication and medical decision making: a cross-cultural perspective. Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg, in press.
Edwards A, Elwyn G, Covey J, Matthews E, Pill R. Presenting risk information—a review of the effects of “framing” and other manipulations on patient outcomes. J Health Commun. 2001;6:61–82.
Kuhberger A. The influence of framing on risky decisions: a meta-analysis. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1998;75:23–55.
Rothman AJ, Salovey P. Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behaviour: the role of message framing. Psychol Bull. 1997;121:3–19.
Wilson DK, Purdon SE, Wallston KA. Compliance to health recommendations: a theoretical overview of message framing. Health Educ Res. 1988;3:161–71.
Salovey P, Williams-Piehota P. Field experiments in social psychology: message framing and the promotion of health protective behaviors. Am Behav Sci. 2004;47:488–505.
Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision making under risk. Econometrica. 1979;6:621–30.
Kahneman D, Tversky A. The psychology of preferences. Sci Am. 1982;46:160–73.
Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211:453–8.
McNeil BJ, Pauker SG, Sox HC, Tversky A. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N Engl J Med. 1982;306:1259–62.
Edwards A, Elwyn G, Mulley A. Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures. BMJ. 2002;324:827–30.
Des Jarlais DC, Sloboda Z, Friedman SR, Tempalski B, McKnight C, Braine N. Diffusion of the D.A.R.E. and syringe exchange programs. Am J Public Health. 2006;96:1354–58.
Rothman AJ, Martino SC, Bedell BT, Detweiler JB, Salovey P. The systematic influence of gain- and loss-framed messages on interest in and use of different types of health behavior. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1999;25:1355–69.
Rothman AJ, Wlaschin JT, Bartels RD, Latimer A, Salovey P. How persons and situations regulate message framing effects: the study of health behavior. In: Eliot A, ed. Handbook of Approach and Avoidance Motivation. Mahwah, NJ: LEA; 2008:475–86.
Rothman AJ, Bartels RD, Wlaschin J, Salovey P. The strategic use of gain- and loss-framed messages to promote healthy behavior: how theory can inform practice. J Commun. 2006;56:S202–20.
Jones LW, Sinclair RC, Courneya KS. The effects of source credibility and message framing on exercise intentions, behaviors, and attitudes: an integration of the elaboration likelihood model and Prospect Theory. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2003;33:179–96.
Gerend MA, Cullen M. Effects of message framing and temporal context on college student drinking behavior. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2008;44:1167–73.
Christophersen ER, Gyulay JE. Parental compliance with car seat usage: a positive approach with long term follow-up. J Pediatr Psychol. 1981;6:301–12.
Treiber FA. A comparison of positive and negative consequences approaches upon car restraint usage. J Pediatr Psychol. 1986;11:15–24.
Rothman AJ, Salovey P, Antone C, Keough K, Martin C. The influence of message framing on health behavior. J Exp Soc Psychol. 1993;29:408–33.
Detweiler JB, Bedell BT, Salovey P, Pronin E, Rothman AJ. Message framing and sunscreen use: gain-framed messages motivate beach-goers. Health Psychol. 1999;18:189–96.
Linville PW, Fischer GW, Fischhoff B. AIDS risk perceptions and decision biases. In: Pryor JB, Reeder GD, eds. The Social Psychology of HIV Infection. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1993:421–432.
Meyerowitz BE, Chaiken S. The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987;52:500–10.
Williams T, Clarke V, Borland R. Effects of message framing on breast-cancer-related beliefs and behaviors: the role of mediating factors. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2001;31:925–50.
Abood DA, Black DR, Coster DC. Loss-framed minimal intervention increases mammography use. Womens Health Issues. 2005;15:258–64.
Abood DA, Coster DC, Mullis AK, Black DR. Evaluation of a “loss-framed” minimal intervention to increase mammography utilization among medically un- and under-insured women. Cancer Detect Prev. 2002;26:394–400.
Banks SM, Salovey P, Greener S, et al. The effects of message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychol. 1995;14:178–84.
Cox D, Cox AD. Communicating the consequences of early detection: the role of evidence and framing. J Marketing. 2001;65:91–103.
Finney LJ, Iannotti RJ. Message framing and mammography screening: a theory-driven intervention. Behav Med. 2002;28:5–14.
Schneider TR, Salovey P, Apanovitch AM, et al. The effects of message framing and ethnic targeting on mammography use among low-income women. Health Psychol. 2001;20:256–66.
Maheswaran D, Meyers-Levy J. The influence of message framing and issue involvement. J Marketing Res. 1990;27:361–7.
Apanovitch AM, McCarthy D, Salovey P. Using message framing to motivate HIV testing among low-income, ethnic minority women. Health Psychol. 2003;22:60–7.
Kalichman SC, Coley B. Context framing to enhance HIV-antibody-testing messages targeted to African American women. Health Psychol. 1995;14:247–54.
Block LG, Keller PA. When to accentuate the negative: the effects of perceived efficacy and message framing on intentions to perform a health-related behavior. J Marketing Res. 1995;32:192–203.
Marteau TM. Framing of information: its influence upon decisions of doctors and patients. Br J Soc Psychol. 1989;28:89–94.
Haward MF, Murphy RO, Lorenz JM. Message framing and perinatal decisions. Pediatrics. 2008;122:109–118.
Wilson DK, Kaplan RM, Schneiderman LJ. Framing of decisions and selections of alternatives in health care. Soc Behav. 1987;2:51–9.
Levin IP, Schnittjer SK, Thee SL. Information framing effects in social and personal decisions. J Exp Soc Psychol. 1988;24:520–9.
Mann TL, Sherman DK, Updegraff JA. Dispositional motivations and message framing: a test of the congruency hypothesis in college students. Health Psychol. 2004;23:330–4.
Sherman DK, Updegraff JA, Mann T. Improving oral health behavior. J Am Dent Assoc. 2008;139:1382–7.
Latimer AE, Rivers SE, Rench TA, et al. A field experiment testing the utility of regulatory fit messages for promoting physical activity. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2008;44:826–32.
Armstrong K, Schwartz JS, Fitzgerald G, Putt M, Ubel PA. Effect of framing as gain versus loss on understanding and hypothetical treatment choices: survival and mortality curves. Med Decis Making. 2002;22:76–83.
Ancker JS, Kaufman D. Rethinking health numeracy: a multidisciplinary literature review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14:713–21.
Reyna VR, Nelson WL, Han P, Dieckmann NF. How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychol Bull. 2009;135:943–73.
Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R. Statistical numeracy for health: A cross-cultural comparison with probabilistic national samples. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:462–8.
Fagerlin A, Ubel PA, Smith DM, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. Making numbers matter: present and future research in risk communication. Am J Health Behav. 2007;31:47–56.
Peters E, Västfjäll D, Slovic P, Mertz CK, Mazzocco K, Dickert S. Numeracy and decision making. Psychol Sci. 2006;17:407–13.
Lerman C, Ross E, Boyce A, et al. The impact of mailing psychoeducational materials to women with abnormal mammograms. Am J Public Health. 1992;82:729–30.
Cormier O’Connor AM, Boyd NF, Tritchler DL, Kriukov Y, Sutherland H, Till JE. Eliciting preferences for alternative cancer drug treatments: the influence of framing, medium, and rater variables. Med Decis Making. 1985;5:453–63.
Llewellyn-Thomas HA, McGreal MJ, Thiel EC. Cancer patients’ decision making and trial-entry preferences: the effects of “framing” information about short-term toxicity and long-term survival. Med Decis Making. 1995;15:4–12.
O’Connor AM, Pennie RA, Dales RE. Framing effects on expectations, decisions, and side effects experienced: the case of influenza immunization [published erratum appears in J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:747−8]. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:1271–6.
Siminoff LA, Fetting JH. Effects of outcome framing on treatment decisions in the real world: impact of framing on adjuvant breast cancer decisions. Med Decis Making. 1989;9:262–71.
Steffen VJ, Sternberg L, Teegarden LA, Shepherd K. Practice and persuasive frame: effects on beliefs, intention, and performance of a cancer self-examination. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1994;24:897–925.
Tykocinski OE, Higgins T, Chaiken S. Message framing, self-discrepancies, and yielding to persuasive messages: the motivational significance of psychological situations. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1994;20:107–15.
O’Keefe DJ, Jensen JD. The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: a meta-analytic review. J Health Commun. 2007;12:623–44.
O’Keefe DJ, Jensen JD. The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease detection behaviors: a meta-analytic review. J Commun. 2009;59:296–316.
Edwards AGK, Pill RM, Stott NCH. Communicating risk: use of standard terms is unlikely to result in standard communication. BMJ. 1996;313:1483.
Redelmeier DA. The cognitive psychology of missed diagnoses. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:115–20.
Almashat S, Ayotte B, Edelstein B, Margrett J. Framing effect debiasing in medical decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;71:102–7.
Ancker JS, Senathirajah Y, Kukafka R, Starren JB. Design features of graphs in health risk communication: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13:608–18.
Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R, Gigerenzer G. Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: overcoming low numeracy. Health Psychol. 2009;28:210–6.
Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R. Graph literacy: a cross-cultural comparison. Med Decis Making, in press, doi:10.1177/0272989X10373805.
Lipkus IM. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:696–713.
Lipkus IM, Hollands JG. The visual communication of risk. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999;25:149–63.
Paling J. Strategies to help patients understand risks. BMJ. 2003;327:745–8.
Volk RJ, Spann SJ. Decision-aids for prostate cancer screening. J Fam Pract. 2000;49:425–7.
Timmermans DRM, Ockhuysen-Vermey CF, Henneman L. Presenting health risk information in different formats: the effect on participants’ cognitive and emotional evaluation and decisions. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73:443–7.
Waters EA, Weinstein ND, Colditz GA, Emmons KM. Reducing aversion to side effects in preventive medical treatment decisions. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2007;13:11–21.
Fagerlin A, Wang C, Ubel PA. Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people’s health care decisions: is a picture worth a thousand statistics? Med Decis Making. 2005;25:398–405.
Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M. Communicating treatment risk reduction to people with low numeracy skills: A cross-cultural comparison. Am J Public Health. 2009;99:2196–202.
Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M, Gigerenzer G. Do icon arrays help reduce denominator neglect? Med Decis Making, in press. doi:10.1177/0272989X10369000.
Goodyear-Smith F, Arroll B, Chan L, Jackson R, Wells S, Kenealy T. Patients prefer pictures to numbers to express cardiovascular benefit from treatment. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6:213–7.
Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M, Gigerenzer G. Enhancing understanding and recall of quantitative information about medical risks: a cross-cultural comparison between Germany and Spain. Spanish J Psychol. in press.
Schirillo JA, Stone ER. The greater ability of graphical versus numerical displays to increase risk avoidance involves a common mechanism. Risk Anal. 2005;25:555–66.
Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M. Who profits from visual aids: overcoming challenges in people’s understanding of risks. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70:1019–25.
Hawley ST, Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel P, Jancovic A, Lucas T, Fagerlin A. The impact of the format of graphical representation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73:448–55.
Baker L, Wagner TH, Singer S, Bundorf MK. Use of the Internet and e-mail for health care information: results from a national survey. JAMA. 2003;289:2400–6.
Jacoby WG. Value choices and American public opinion. Am J Pol Sci. 2006;50:706–23.
Lerner JS, Gonzalez RM, Small DA, Fischoff B. Effects of fear and anger on perceived risks of terrorism: a national field experiment. Psychol Sci. 2003;14:144–50.
Miller JD, Scott EC, Okamoto S. Public acceptance of evolution. Science. 2006;313:765–6.
Schlenger WE, Caddell JM, Ebert L, et al. Psychological reactions to terrorist attacks: findings from the national study of Americans’ reactions to September 11. JAMA. 2002;288:581–8.
Chang L, Krosnick JA. National surveys via RDD telephone interviewing versus the Internet: comparing sample representativeness and response quality. Public Opin Q. 2009;73:641–8.
Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch HG. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:966–72.
Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer BK. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:37–44.
Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch G. Can patients interpret health information? An assessment of the medical data interpretation test. Med Decis Making. 2005;25:290–300.
Stone ER, Yates JF, Parker AM. Effects of numerical and graphical displays on professed risk-taking behavior. J Exp Psychol Appl. 1997;3:243–56.
Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Black WC, Welch HG. Women’s perceptions of breast cancer risk: how you ask matters. Med Decis Making. 1999;19:221–9.
Davids SL, Schapira MM, McAuliffe TL, Nattinger AB. Predictors of pessimistic breast cancer risk perceptions in a primary care population. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19:310–5.
Reyna VF, Brainerd CJ. The importance of mathematics in health and human judgment: numeracy, risk communication, and medical decision making. Learn Individ Differ. 2007;17:147–59.
Reyna VF, Brainerd CJ. Numeracy, ratio bias, and denominator neglect in judgments of risk and probability. Learn Individ Differ. 2008;18:89–107.
Garcia-Retamero R, Heuristics GM. In: Kattan MW, ed. The Encyclopedia of Medical Decision Making. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2009:596–9.
Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W, Kurz-Milcke E, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2008;8:53–96.
Gigerenzer G, Hoffrage U. How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: frequency formats. Psychol Rev. 1995;102:684–704.
Covey JA. Meta-analysis of the effects of presenting treatment benefits in different formats. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:638–54.
Gigerenzer G, Hertwig R, van den Broek E, Fasolo B, Katsikopoulos K. “A 30% chance of rain tomorrow”: How does the public understand probabilistic weather forecasts? Risk Anal. 2005;25:623–9.
Reyna VF, Brainerd CJ. Fuzzy-trace theory and framing effects in choice: gist extraction, truncation, and conversion. J Behav Decis Making. 1991;4:249–62.
Garcia-Retamero R, Cokely E. Effective communication of risks to young adults: using message framing and visual aids to increase condom use and STD screening. Manuscript under review.
Levin IP, Schneider SL, Gaeth GJ. All frames are not created equal: a typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1998;76:149–88.
Bruine de Bruin W, Fischhoff B. The effect of question format on measured HIV/AIDS knowledge: detention center teens, high school students, and adults. AIDS Educ Prev. 2000;12:187–98.
Hsee CK, Weber EU. A fundamental prediction error: self-other discrepancies in risk preference. J Exp Psych. 1997;126:45–53.
Acknowledgments
We thank Anita Todd for editing the manuscript. This study is part of two projects, “Helping people with low numeracy to understand medical information,” funded by the Foundation for Informed Medical Decision Making (US) and the Max Planck Society (Germany), and “How to improve understanding of risks about health (PSI2008-02019),” funded by the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (Spain).
Conflict of Interests
None disclosed.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Garcia-Retamero, R., Galesic, M. How to Reduce the Effect of Framing on Messages About Health. J GEN INTERN MED 25, 1323–1329 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1484-9
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1484-9