Probability Information in Risk Communication: A Review of the Research Literature

作者: Vivianne H. M. Visschers , Ree M. Meertens , Wim W. F. Passchier , Nanne N. K. de Vries

DOI: 10.1111/J.1539-6924.2008.01137.X

关键词:

摘要: Communicating probability information about risks to the public is more difficult than might be expected. Many studies have examined this subject, so that their resulting recommendations are scattered over various publications, diverse research fields, and different presentation formats. An integration of empirical findings in one review would useful therefore describe evidence base for communication present can made far. We categorized following formats: frequencies, percentages, rates proportions, absolute relative risk reduction, cumulative probabilities, verbal information, numerical versus graphs, ladders. suggest several these Based on results our review, we show effects format depend not only type format, but also context which used. argue has strongest effect when receiver processes heuristically instead systematically. conclude future practitioners should concentrate situation message presented, as may predict how people process influence interpretation risk.

参考文章(81)
Theresa M Marteau, Vicky Senior, Peter Sasieni, Women's understanding of a “normal smear test result”: experimental questionnaire based study BMJ. ,vol. 322, pp. 526- 528 ,(2001) , 10.1136/BMJ.322.7285.526
Peter M. Sandman, Neil D. Weinstein, Paul Miller, High Risk or Low: How Location on a “Risk Ladder” Affects Perceived Risk Risk Analysis. ,vol. 14, pp. 35- 45 ,(1994) , 10.1111/J.1539-6924.1994.TB00026.X
Amit Kumar Ghosh, Karthik Ghosh, Translating evidence-based information into effective risk communication: current challenges and opportunities. Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine. ,vol. 145, pp. 171- 180 ,(2005) , 10.1016/J.LAB.2005.02.006
Wibecke Brun, Karl Halvor Teigen, Verbal probabilities: Ambiguous, context-dependent, or both? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. ,vol. 41, pp. 390- 404 ,(1988) , 10.1016/0749-5978(88)90036-2
Jamie L. Studts, Troy D. Abell, Lynne M. Roetzer, Ashley N. Albers, Kelly M. McMasters, Celia Chao, Preferences for different methods of communicating information regarding adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Psycho-oncology. ,vol. 14, pp. 647- 660 ,(2005) , 10.1002/PON.886
Bärbel Knäuper, Rachel Kornik, Katherine Atkinson, Carly Guberman, Cristina Aydin, Motivation Influences the Underestimation of Cumulative Risk Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. ,vol. 31, pp. 1511- 1523 ,(2005) , 10.1177/0146167205276864
V. Kerry Smith, William H. Desvousges, Risk Communication and the Value of Information: Radon as a Case Study The Review of Economics and Statistics. ,vol. 72, pp. 137- 142 ,(1990) , 10.2307/2109749
Leilani Greening, Carla C. Chandler, Laura Stoppelbein, Leslie J. Robison, Risk Perception: Using Conditional Versus General Base Rates for Risk Communication1 Journal of Applied Social Psychology. ,vol. 35, pp. 2094- 2122 ,(2005) , 10.1111/J.1559-1816.2005.TB02211.X
I. M. Lipkus, J. G. Hollands, The visual communication of risk. Journal of The National Cancer Institute Monographs. ,vol. 1999, pp. 149- 163 ,(1999) , 10.1093/OXFORDJOURNALS.JNCIMONOGRAPHS.A024191