![]() Each of these features has implications for communicating risk, because they relate to how people interpret and respond to those messages. Third, people are less sensitive to probabilities when descriptions of decisions evoke high levels of affect. Second, affective features of a risk event or its description, such as vividness, opportunity for control, or potential for clusters of deaths, can influence risk perceptions. First, affective reactions play a key role in risk perception. Three important interrelated findings emerge from these lines of research. Such research therefore reports reduced sensitivity to probability information when affect is high. ![]() $18) but for the affect-rich outcome (electric shock) was similar irrespective of the probability level (Median WTP $7 vs. Willingness-to-pay (WTP) to avoid an affect-poor outcome (cash penalty) increased substantially with the stated outcome probability (Median WTP $1 vs. 99%) of either: (1) a “short, painful, but not dangerous electric shock” or (2) a $20 cash penalty. Rottenstreich & Hsee ( 2001) asked participants how much they would be willing to pay to avoid the hypothetical chance (1% vs. Similarly, Sinaceur, Heath, and Cole ( 2005) found that while probability information was considered when scientific terms were used (Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease), when an affect-rich descriptor (“mad-cow disease”) was used, people made decisions on their beef consumption based on their emotional reactions. For example, Pachur, Hertwig, and Wolkewitz ( 2014) found that participants spent time acquiring outcome and probability information equally in an (affect-poor) monetary loss scenario yet acquired outcome information more frequently than probability information when examining an (affect-rich) medical side-effects scenario. The second line of research directly manipulates affect and finds that people search for and use probability information less in affect-rich scenarios compared to affect-poor ones. Importantly, this research provides evidence that the affective features of an event or its description can be key drivers of risk perceptions, and identifies a particularly affective dimension: the “dread dimension.” Activities/technologies high on unknown risk are deemed less observable and less well-understood those scoring high on dread risk are judged to have incontrollable and involuntary risks with the potential for catastrophic consequences. The first stream is predominantly correlational and exemplified by Slovic and colleagues (e.g., Slovic, 1987, 2000 Fox-Glassman & Weber, 2016) who identified two dimensions of perceived risk: unknown risk and dread risk (Slovic, 2000). Two streams of research have investigated how affect influences people's responses to risk information. This interplay between affect and format therefore reflects an important consideration for information designers and researchers. The findings illustrate that insensitivity to probability information can occur in evidence-informed risk communications and highlight how communication format can moderate this effect. These differences were predicted by participants’ prior beliefs concerning the scenario events (Study 1) and were larger for the single-item written format than graphical format (Study 2). The affect-rich scenario was perceived as higher in risk, and, importantly, despite presenting identical relative risk information in both scenarios, was associated with a reduced sensitivity to probability information (both studies). Participants provided their perceptions of the risk for each scenario at a range of risk-levels. In Study 2, information was presented in one of three formats: written, tabular, or graphical. In Study 1, this was presented graphically. Participants completed a prior beliefs questionnaire (Study 1), and risk perception booklet (both studies) that presented identical statistical information about the relative risks associated with two scenarios-one with an affect-rich outcome, the other an affect-poorer outcome. We additionally investigated whether this effect is moderated by format, based on predictions from the evaluability and pattern-recognition literatures, suggesting that graphical formats may attenuate insensitivity to probability. Two studies (Ns: 85 and 100) examined the insensitivity-to-probability effect-where people discount probability information when scenarios are affect-rich-applying it to evidence-informed risk communication. Affect can influence judgments of event riskiness and use of risk-related information.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |