Abstract
There have long been speculations that graphical and numerical presentations of risk statistics differ in their impact on people’s willingness to pursue actions that could harm or even kill them. But research has been unclear about the processes whereby the pictorial character of graphical displays per se might affect those risky decisions or even whether such effects actually occur. In two studies, we demonstrate that the pictorial nature of a graphical risk display can, indeed, increase risk avoidance. This increase is associated with a heightened impression of the riskiness of less safe alternatives. The results suggest that this picture-driven, intensified sense of riskiness, in turn, rests on two kinds of mechanisms: one cognitive, the other affective. Cognitively, pictorial presentations impose weaker upper bounds on people’s internal representations of the chances that riskier alternatives will bring about actual harm. Affectively, pictures ignite stronger, more aversive negative associations with riskier options and their outcomes.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., &Damasio, A. R. (1997). Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy.Science,275, 1293–1295.
Covello, V. T., Sandman, P. M., &Slovic, P. (1988).Risk communication, risk statistics and risk comparisons: A manual for plant managers. Washington, DC: Chemical Manufacturers Association.
Damasio, A. R. (1994).Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Putnam.
Fazio, R. H. (1995). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: Determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.),Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 247–282). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., &Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,13, 1–17.
Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., &Slovic, P. (2003). Judgment and decision making: The dance of affect and reason. In S. L. Schneider & J. Shanteau (Eds.),Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research (pp. 327–364). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hastie, R. (2001). Problems for judgment and decision making.Annual Review of Psychology,52, 653–683.
Hemphill, M. (1996).A note on adults’ color-emotion associations.Journal of Genetic Psychology,157, 275–280.
Hogarth, R. M., & Einhorn, H. J. (1992). Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model.Cognitive Psychology,24, 1–55.
Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1990). Graphic displays in decision making: The visual salience effect.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,3, 247–262.
Kahneman, D., &Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of choice under risk.Econometrica,47, 263–291.
Keeney, R. L., &von Winterfeldt, D. (1986). Improving risk communication.Risk Analysis,6, 417–424.
Kleinmuntz, D. N., &Schkade, D. A. (1993). Information displays and decision processes.Psychological Science,4, 221–227.
Kline, R. B. (2005).Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., &Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,76, 149–188.
Levy, B. I. (1984). Research into the psychological meaning of color.American Journal of Art Therapy,23, 58–62.
Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., &Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings.Psychological Bulletin,127, 267–286.
Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., &Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding.Journal of Educational Psychology,93, 187–198.
Meyer, J., Shinar, D., &Leiser, D. (1997). Multiple factors that determine performance with tables and graphs.Human Factors,39, 268–286.
Meyerowitz, B. E., &Chaiken, S. (1987). The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,52, 500–510.
Preston, M. G., &Baratta, P. (1948). An experimental study of the auction-value of an uncertain outcome.American Journal of Psychology,61, 183–193.
Reyna, V. F., &Brainerd, C. J. (1991). Fuzzy-trace theory and framing effects in choice: Gist extraction, truncation, and conversion.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,4, 249–262.
Sanfey, A., &Hastie, R. (1998). Does evidence presentation format affect judgment? An experimental evaluation of displays of data for judgments.Psychological Science,9, 99–103.
Shah, P., Freedman, E., &Vekiri, I. (2005). The comprehension of quantitative information in graphical displays. In P. Shah & A. Miyake (Eds.),The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking (pp. 426–476). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Simon, D., Krawczyk, D. C., &Holyoak, K. J. (2004). Construction of preferences by constraint satisfaction.Psychological Science,15, 331–336.
Slovic, P., &Fischhoff, B. (1977). On the psychology of experimental surprises.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,3, 544–551.
Stone, E. R., Sieck, W. R., Bull, B. E., Yates, J. F., Parks, S. C., &Rush, C. J. (2003). Foreground:background salience: Explaining the effects of graphical displays on risk avoidance.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,90, 19–36.
Stone, E. R., Yates, J. F., &Parker, A. M. (1994). Risk communication: Absolute versus relative expressions of low-probability risks.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,60, 387–408.
Stone, E. R., Yates, J. F., &Parker, A. M. (1997). Effects of numerical and graphical displays on professed risk-taking behavior.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,3, 243–256.
Valdez, P., &Mehrabian, A. (1994). Effects of color on emotions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,123, 394–409.
Yates, J. F. (1990).Judgment and decision making. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yates, J. F., &Curley, S. P. (1986). Contingency judgment: Primacy effects and attention decrement.Acta Psychologica,62, 293–302.
Yates, J. F., &Stone, E. R. (1992). The risk construct. In J. F. Yates (Ed.),Risk-taking behavior (pp. 1–25). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
This research was supported in part by the University of Michigan Business School and a fellowship from the American Association of University Women.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chua, H.F., Yates, J.F. & Shah, P. Risk avoidance: Graphs versus numbers. Memory & Cognition 34, 399–410 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193417
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193417