Citation

Stone ER, Bruine de Bruin W, Wilkins AM, Boker EM, MacDonald Gibson J. Risk Anal. 2016; 37(4): 612-628.

Affiliation

Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2016, Society for Risk Analysis, Publisher John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/risa.12660

PMID

27862121

Abstract

Previous research suggests that the choice of graphical format for communicating risk information affects both understanding of the risk magnitude and the likelihood of acting to decrease risk. However, the mechanisms through which these effects work are poorly understood. To explore these mechanisms using a real-world scenario, we examined the relative impact of two graphical displays for depicting the risk of exposure to unexploded ammunition during potential land redevelopment. One display depicted only the foreground information graphically (a bar graph of the number of people harmed), and a second depicted the foreground and background graphically (a stacked bar graph representing both the number harmed and at risk). We presented 296 participants with either the foreground-only or the foreground and background graphical display and measured a broad set of outcome variables, examining (1) the graphical display effect on each of the outcome measures and (2) the pathways by which any display effects work to influence decision making. We found that the foreground-only graphical display increased perceived likelihood and experienced fear, which produced greater worry, which in turn increased risk aversion. In addition, a positive evaluation of the communication materials increased support for policies related to land redevelopment, whether those policies were risk taking or risk mitigating. Finally, the foreground-only graphical display decreased understanding of the risk magnitude, showing that approaches to accomplish one risk communication goal (promoting risk-averse decisions) may do so at the expense of another goal (increasing understanding).

© 2016 Society for Risk Analysis.

Language: en