Department of Psychology, King's College London, London, UK.
Department of Psychology, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.
Med Decis Making. 2018 Aug;38(6):646-657. doi: 10.1177/0272989X18785356. Epub 2018 Jul 16.
Past research finds that treatment evaluations are more negative when risks are presented after benefits. This study investigates this order effect: manipulating tabular orientation and order of risk-benefit information, and examining information search order and gaze duration via eye-tracking.
108 (Study 1) and 44 (Study 2) participants viewed information about treatment risks and benefits, in either a horizontal (left-right) or vertical (above-below) orientation, with the benefits or risks presented first (left side or at top). For 4 scenarios, participants answered 6 treatment evaluation questions (1-7 scales) that were combined into overall evaluation scores. In addition, Study 2 collected eye-tracking data during the benefit-risk presentation.
Participants tended to read one set of information (i.e., all risks or all benefits) before transitioning to the other. Analysis of order of fixations showed this tendency was stronger in the vertical (standardized mean rank difference further from 0, M = ± .88) than horizontal orientation ( M = ± 0.71). Approximately 50% of the time was spent reading benefits when benefits were shown first, but this was reduced to ~40% when risks were presented first (regression coefficient: B = -4.52, p < .001). Eye-tracking measures did not strongly predict treatment evaluations, although time percentage reading benefits positively predicted evaluation when holding other variables constant ( B = 0.02, p = .023).
These results highlight the impact of seemingly arbitrary design choices on inspection order. For instance, presenting risks where they will be seen first leads to relatively less time spent considering treatment benefits. Other research suggests these changes to inspection order can influence multi-option and multi-attribute choices, and represent an area for future research.
以往的研究发现，在呈现风险之后再呈现益处时，治疗评估会更为负面。本研究通过眼动追踪，调查了这种顺序效应：操纵表格的方向和风险-效益信息的顺序，并检验了信息搜索顺序和注视持续时间。
108 名（研究 1）和 44 名（研究 2）参与者以水平（左右）或垂直（上下）方向查看关于治疗风险和益处的信息，益处或风险首先呈现（左侧或顶部）。对于 4 个场景，参与者回答了 6 个治疗评估问题（1-7 分制），这些问题被组合成整体评估得分。此外，研究 2 在呈现益处-风险期间收集了眼动追踪数据。
参与者倾向于先阅读一组信息（即所有风险或所有益处），然后再阅读另一组信息。注视点顺序分析表明，这种趋势在垂直方向（标准化平均秩差进一步偏离 0，M=±0.88）比水平方向（M=±0.71）更强。当首先呈现益处时，大约有 50%的时间用于阅读益处，但当首先呈现风险时，这一比例降至约 40%（回归系数：B=-4.52，p<.001）。眼动追踪测量指标并未强烈预测治疗评估，尽管当控制其他变量时，阅读益处的时间百分比与评估呈正相关（B=0.02，p=0.023）。
这些结果强调了看似任意的设计选择对检查顺序的影响。例如，将风险放在首先呈现的位置，会导致相对较少的时间用于考虑治疗益处。其他研究表明，这些检查顺序的变化会影响多选项和多属性选择，是未来研究的一个领域。
