Do colored cells in risk matrices affect decision-making and risk perception? Insights from randomized controlled studies

Risk matrices communicate the likelihood and potential impact of risks and are often used to inform decision-making around risk mitigations. The merits and demerits of risk matrices in general have been discussed extensively, yet little attention has been paid to the potential influence of color in risk matrices on their users. We draw from fuzzy-trace theory and hypothesize that when color is present, individuals are likely to place greater value on reducing risks that cross color boundaries (i.e., the boundary-crossing effect), leading to sub-optimal decision making. In two randomized controlled studies, employing forced-choice and willingness-to-pay measures to investigate the boundary-crossing effect in two different color formats for risk matrices, we find preliminary evidence to support our hypotheses that color can influence decision making. The evidence also suggests that the boundary-crossing effect is only present in, or is stronger for, higher numeracy individuals. We therefore recommend that designers should consider avoiding color in risk matrices, particularly in situations where these are likely to be used by highly numerate individuals, if the communication goal is to inform in an unbiased way

Fighting misinformation in seismology: Expert opinion on earthquake facts vs. fiction

Misinformation carries the potential for immense damage to public understanding of science and for evidence-based decision making at an individual and policy level. Our research explores the following questions within seismology: which claims can be considered misinformation, which are supported by a consensus, and which are still under scientific debate? Consensus and debate are important to quantify, because where levels of scientific consensus on an issue are high, communication of this fact may itself serve as a useful tool in combating misinformation. This is a challenge for earthquake science, where certain theories and facts in seismology are still being established. The present study collates a list of common public statements about earthquakes and provides–to the best of our knowledge–the first elicitation of the opinions of 164 earth scientists on the degree of verity of these statements. The results provide important insights for the state of knowledge in the field, helping identify those areas where consensus messaging may aid in the fight against earthquake related misinformation and areas where there is currently lack of consensus opinion. We highlight the necessity of using clear, accessible, jargon-free statements with specified parameters and precise wording when communicating with the public about earthquakes, as well as of transparency about the uncertainties around some issues in seismology

How People Understand Risk Matrices, and How Matrix Design Can Improve their Use: Findings from Randomized Controlled Studies.

Risk matrices are a common way to communicate the likelihood and potential impacts of a variety of risks. Until now, there has been little empirical work on their effectiveness in supporting understanding and decision making, and on how different design choices affect these. In this pair of online experiments (total n = 2699), we show that risk matrices are not always superior to text for the presentation of risk information, and that a nonlinear/geometric labeling scheme helps matrix comprehension (when the likelihood/impact scales are nonlinear). To a lesser degree, results suggested that changing the shape of the matrix so that cells increase in size nonlinearly facilitates comprehension as compared to text alone, and that comprehension might be enhanced by integrating further details about the likelihood and impact onto the axes of the matrix rather than putting them in a separate key. These changes did not affect participants' preference for reducing impact over reducing likelihood when making decisions about risk mitigation. We recommend that designers of risk matrices consider these changes to facilitate better understanding of relationships among risks

Multiple Hazard Uncertainty Visualization Challenges and Paths Forward

Making decisions with uncertainty is challenging for the general public, policymakers, and even highly trained scientists. Nevertheless, when faced with the need to respond to a potential hazard, people must make high-risk decisions with uncertainty. In some cases, people have to consider multiple hazards with various types of uncertainties. Multiple hazards can be interconnected by location, time, and/or environmental systems, and the hazards may interact, producing complex relationships among their associated uncertainties. The interaction between multiple hazards and their uncertainties can have nonlinear effects, where the resultant risk and uncertainty are greater than the sum of the risk and uncertainty associated with individual hazards. Effectively communicating the uncertainties related to such complicated systems should be a high priority because the frequency and variability of multiple hazard events due to climate change continue to increase. However, the communication of multiple hazard uncertainties and their interactions remains largely unexplored. The lack of practical guidance on conveying multiple hazard uncertainties is likely due in part to the field’s vast expanse, making it challenging to identify entry points. Here, we offer a perspective on three critical challenges related to uncertainty communication across various multiple hazard contexts to galvanize the research community. We advocate for systematic considerations of multiple hazard uncertainty communication that focus on trade-offs between complexity and factors, including mental effort, trust, and usability

Fighting misinformation in seismology: Expert opinion on earthquake facts vs. fiction

Misinformation carries the potential for immense damage to public understanding of science and for evidence-based decision making at an individual and policy level. Our research explores the following questions within seismology: which claims can be considered misinformation, which are supported by a consensus, and which are still under scientific debate? Consensus and debate are important to quantify, because where levels of scientific consensus on an issue are high, communication of this fact may itself serve as a useful tool in combating misinformation. This is a challenge for earthquake science, where certain theories and facts in seismology are still being established. The present study collates a list of common public statements about earthquakes and provides–to the best of our knowledge–the first elicitation of the opinions of 164 earth scientists on the degree of verity of these statements. The results provide important insights for the state of knowledge in the field, helping identify those areas where consensus messaging may aid in the fight against earthquake related misinformation and areas where there is currently lack of consensus opinion. We highlight the necessity of using clear, accessible, jargon-free statements with specified parameters and precise wording when communicating with the public about earthquakes, as well as of transparency about the uncertainties around some issues in seismology

Communicating personalized risks from COVID-19: guidelines from an empirical study.

As increasing amounts of data accumulate on the effects of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and the risk factors that lead to poor outcomes, it is possible to produce personalized estimates of the risks faced by groups of people with different characteristics. The challenge of how to communicate these then becomes apparent. Based on empirical work (total n = 5520, UK) supported by in-person interviews with the public and physicians, we make recommendations on the presentation of such information. These include: using predominantly percentages when communicating the absolute risk, but also providing, for balance, a format which conveys a contrasting (higher) perception of risk (expected frequency out of 10 000); using a visual linear scale cut at an appropriate point to illustrate the maximum risk, explained through an illustrative 'persona' who might face that highest level of risk; and providing context to the absolute risk through presenting a range of other 'personas' illustrating people who would face risks of a wide range of different levels. These 'personas' should have their major risk factors (age, existing health conditions) described. By contrast, giving people absolute likelihoods of other risks they face in an attempt to add context was considered less helpful. We note that observed effect sizes generally were small. However, even small effects are meaningful and relevant when scaled up to population levels

Communicating personalised risks from COVID-19: guidelines from an empirical study

As increasing amounts of data accumulate on the effects of the novel coronavirus Sars-CoV-2 and the risk factors that lead to poor outcomes, it is possible to produce personalised estimates of the risks faced by groups of people with different characteristics. The challenge of how to communicate these then becomes apparent. Based on empirical work (total n=5,520, UK) supported by in-person interviews with the public and physicians, we make recommendations on the presentation of such information. These include: using predominantly percentages when communicating the absolute risk, but also providing, for balance, a format which conveys a contrasting (higher) perception of risk (expected frequency out of 10,000); using a visual linear scale cut at an appropriate point to illustrate the maximum risk, explained through an illustrative ‘persona’ who might face that highest level of risk; and providing context to the absolute risk through presenting a range of other ‘personas’ illustrating people who would face risks of a wide range of different levels. These ‘personas’ should have their major risk factors (age, existing health conditions) described. By contrast, giving people absolute likelihoods of other risks they face in an attempt to add context was considered less helpful

The effects of communicating uncertainty around statistics, on public trust

Uncertainty around statistics is inevitable. However, communicators of uncertain statistics, particularly in high-stakes and potentially political circumstances, may be concerned that presenting uncertainties could undermine the perceived trustworthiness of the information or its source. In a large survey experiment (Study 1; N = 10 519), we report that communicating uncertainty around present COVID-19 statistics in the form of a numeric range (versus no uncertainty) may lead to slightly lower perceived trustworthiness of the number presented but has no impact on perceived trustworthiness of the source of the information. We also show that this minimal impact of numeric uncertainty on trustworthiness is also present when communicating future, projected COVID-19 statistics (Study 2; N = 2,309). Conversely, we find statements about the mere existence of uncertainty, without quantification, can reduce both perceived trustworthiness of the numbers and of their source. Our findings add to others suggesting that communicators can be transparent about statistical uncertainty without undermining their credibility as a source but should endeavour to provide a quantification, such as a numeric range, where possible.</p

Communicating personalized risks from COVID-19: guidelines from an empirical study.

As increasing amounts of data accumulate on the effects of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and the risk factors that lead to poor outcomes, it is possible to produce personalized estimates of the risks faced by groups of people with different characteristics. The challenge of how to communicate these then becomes apparent. Based on empirical work (total n = 5520, UK) supported by in-person interviews with the public and physicians, we make recommendations on the presentation of such information. These include: using predominantly percentages when communicating the absolute risk, but also providing, for balance, a format which conveys a contrasting (higher) perception of risk (expected frequency out of 10 000); using a visual linear scale cut at an appropriate point to illustrate the maximum risk, explained through an illustrative 'persona' who might face that highest level of risk; and providing context to the absolute risk through presenting a range of other 'personas' illustrating people who would face risks of a wide range of different levels. These 'personas' should have their major risk factors (age, existing health conditions) described. By contrast, giving people absolute likelihoods of other risks they face in an attempt to add context was considered less helpful. We note that observed effect sizes generally were small. However, even small effects are meaningful and relevant when scaled up to population levels

Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world.

Misinformation about COVID-19 is a major threat to public health. Using five national samples from the UK (n = 1050 and n = 1150), Ireland (n = 700), the USA (n = 700), Spain (n = 700) and Mexico (n = 700), we examine predictors of belief in the most common statements about the virus that contain misinformation. We also investigate the prevalence of belief in COVID-19 misinformation across different countries and the role of belief in such misinformation in predicting relevant health behaviours. We find that while public belief in misinformation about COVID-19 is not particularly common, a substantial proportion views this type of misinformation as highly reliable in each country surveyed. In addition, a small group of participants find common factual information about the virus highly unreliable. We also find that increased susceptibility to misinformation negatively affects people's self-reported compliance with public health guidance about COVID-19, as well as people's willingness to get vaccinated against the virus and to recommend the vaccine to vulnerable friends and family. Across all countries surveyed, we find that higher trust in scientists and having higher numeracy skills were associated with lower susceptibility to coronavirus-related misinformation. Taken together, these results demonstrate a clear link between susceptibility to misinformation and both vaccine hesitancy and a reduced likelihood to comply with health guidance measures, and suggest that interventions which aim to improve critical thinking and trust in science may be a promising avenue for future research