Centre for Decision Research, Leeds University Business School, University of Leeds, UK.
Department of Psychology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Risk Anal. 2018 May;38(5):929-946. doi: 10.1111/risa.12895. Epub 2017 Oct 3.
Graphs show promise for improving communications about different types of risks, including health risks, financial risks, and climate risks. However, graph designs that are effective at meeting one important risk communication goal (promoting risk-avoidant behaviors) can at the same time compromise another key goal (improving risk understanding). We developed and tested simple bar graphs aimed at accomplishing these two goals simultaneously. We manipulated two design features in graphs, namely, whether graphs depicted the number of people affected by a risk and those at risk of harm ("foreground+background") versus only those affected ("foreground-only"), and the presence versus absence of simple numerical labels above bars. Foreground-only displays were associated with larger risk perceptions and risk-avoidant behavior (i.e., willingness to take a drug for heart attack prevention) than foreground+background displays, regardless of the presence of labels. Foreground-only graphs also hindered risk understanding when labels were not present. However, the presence of labels significantly improved understanding, eliminating the detrimental effect of foreground-only displays. Labels also led to more positive user evaluations of the graphs, but did not affect risk-avoidant behavior. Using process modeling we identified mediators (risk perceptions, understanding, user evaluations) that explained the effect of display type on risk-avoidant behavior. Our findings contribute new evidence to the graph design literature: unlike what was previously feared, we demonstrate that it is possible to design foreground-only graphs that promote intentions for behavior change without a detrimental effect on risk understanding. Implications for the design of graphical risk communications and decision support are discussed.
图形在改善不同类型风险（包括健康风险、财务风险和气候风险）的沟通方面具有很大的潜力。然而，在满足一个重要的风险沟通目标（促进规避风险行为）的同时，图形设计可能会影响另一个关键目标（提高风险理解）。我们开发并测试了旨在同时实现这两个目标的简单条形图。我们在图形中操纵了两个设计特征，即图形是否描绘了受风险影响的人数和处于风险中的人数（“前景+背景”）与仅受影响的人数（“仅前景”），以及条形图上方是否存在简单的数值标签。与前景+背景显示相比，无论是否存在标签，仅前景显示与更大的风险感知和规避风险行为（即，愿意服用药物预防心脏病发作）相关。当不存在标签时，仅前景显示也会阻碍风险理解。然而，标签的存在显著提高了理解，消除了仅前景显示的不利影响。标签还导致用户对图形的评价更加积极，但不会影响规避风险的行为。使用过程建模，我们确定了解释显示类型对规避风险行为影响的中介变量（风险感知、理解、用户评价）。我们的研究结果为图形设计文献提供了新的证据：与之前的担忧相反，我们证明，设计旨在促进行为改变意图而不影响风险理解的仅前景图形是可能的。讨论了图形风险沟通和决策支持的设计意义。
