Motivated Interpretations of Survival Rates in Icon Arrays: An Issue of Frequency Format?

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Jeremy D Strueder, Inkyung Park, Siobhan M McDonnell, Mir A Basir, Paul D Windschitl
{"title":"Motivated Interpretations of Survival Rates in Icon Arrays: An Issue of Frequency Format?","authors":"Jeremy D Strueder, Inkyung Park, Siobhan M McDonnell, Mir A Basir, Paul D Windschitl","doi":"10.1177/0272989X251332315","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundIcon arrays, which visually depict frequencies, are commonly recommended for communicating risk information such as survival rates. However, they have been found to be ineffective at buffering against motivated reasoning that can lead to undue optimism. To determine whether the impersonal frequency format of icon arrays (reporting a number affected out of a reference class) makes them vulnerable to motivated reasoning, a novel intervention is tested as a means for reducing undue optimism.MethodsFemale US participants from Amazon's MTurk (<i>N</i> = 399) imagined a scenario in which their infant would be born extremely preterm. They were presented with icon array information about the survival chances (15-in-100 or 45-in-100) of prematurely born infants with intensive care. For the key intervention, some participants were asked a reflection question immediately after seeing the icon array, which prompted them to indicate what the information meant for their own infant's percent-chance of survival (i.e., they converted a frequency about a reference class to a probability value about the personal outcome of interest). For other participants, the reflection question merely asked about frequency. The main dependent measure came next and assessed gut-level optimism.ResultsPeople's gut-level beliefs about their infant's chances of survival were optimistically biased; the intervention did not reduce this. These gut-level beliefs, rather than the objective survival rate information conveyed through icon arrays, were predictive of subsequent treatment choices.ConclusionsThe results suggest that the inability of icon arrays to buffer against motivated reasoning is not due to their frequency format. Moreover, the findings highlight the usefulness of measuring gut-level interpretations of likelihood, which can reveal significant insights into the psychological mechanisms driving patient-treatment choices.HighlightsIcon arrays, which visually depict frequencies, are commonly recommended as best-practice for communicating risk information in health contexts.However, recent work has found that they are ineffective at reducing the extent to which people engage in motivated reasoning when processing likelihood information.We find that the frequency format of icon arrays-depicting a rate for outcomes in a group of people rather than a case-specific probability-is not a primary reason why they are ineffective at reducing optimism biasWe also find that measures of gut-level beliefs of likelihood are particularly well suited for detecting optimism bias, yet also predict subsequent treatment decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":"272989X251332315"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X251332315","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundIcon arrays, which visually depict frequencies, are commonly recommended for communicating risk information such as survival rates. However, they have been found to be ineffective at buffering against motivated reasoning that can lead to undue optimism. To determine whether the impersonal frequency format of icon arrays (reporting a number affected out of a reference class) makes them vulnerable to motivated reasoning, a novel intervention is tested as a means for reducing undue optimism.MethodsFemale US participants from Amazon's MTurk (N = 399) imagined a scenario in which their infant would be born extremely preterm. They were presented with icon array information about the survival chances (15-in-100 or 45-in-100) of prematurely born infants with intensive care. For the key intervention, some participants were asked a reflection question immediately after seeing the icon array, which prompted them to indicate what the information meant for their own infant's percent-chance of survival (i.e., they converted a frequency about a reference class to a probability value about the personal outcome of interest). For other participants, the reflection question merely asked about frequency. The main dependent measure came next and assessed gut-level optimism.ResultsPeople's gut-level beliefs about their infant's chances of survival were optimistically biased; the intervention did not reduce this. These gut-level beliefs, rather than the objective survival rate information conveyed through icon arrays, were predictive of subsequent treatment choices.ConclusionsThe results suggest that the inability of icon arrays to buffer against motivated reasoning is not due to their frequency format. Moreover, the findings highlight the usefulness of measuring gut-level interpretations of likelihood, which can reveal significant insights into the psychological mechanisms driving patient-treatment choices.HighlightsIcon arrays, which visually depict frequencies, are commonly recommended as best-practice for communicating risk information in health contexts.However, recent work has found that they are ineffective at reducing the extent to which people engage in motivated reasoning when processing likelihood information.We find that the frequency format of icon arrays-depicting a rate for outcomes in a group of people rather than a case-specific probability-is not a primary reason why they are ineffective at reducing optimism biasWe also find that measures of gut-level beliefs of likelihood are particularly well suited for detecting optimism bias, yet also predict subsequent treatment decisions.

图标阵列存活率的动机解释:频率格式的问题?
dicon阵列可以直观地描述频率,通常被推荐用于传达诸如存活率之类的风险信息。然而,他们被发现在缓冲可能导致过度乐观的动机推理方面是无效的。为了确定图标数组的非个人频率格式(从参考类中报告受影响的数字)是否使它们容易受到动机推理的影响,我们测试了一种新的干预措施,作为减少过度乐观的一种手段。方法来自亚马逊MTurk的美国女性参与者(N = 399)想象了一个他们的孩子将会极度早产的场景。研究人员向他们展示了经过重症监护的早产婴儿的生存几率(15% / 100或45% / 100)的图标数组信息。对于关键的干预,一些参与者在看到图标数组后立即被问及一个反思问题,这促使他们指出这些信息对他们自己的婴儿的生存几率意味着什么(即,他们将参考类的频率转换为关于个人兴趣结果的概率值)。对于其他参与者,反思问题只是询问频率。接下来是主要的依赖测量,评估的是内心的乐观程度。结果人们对婴儿存活几率的直觉判断存在乐观偏差;干预并没有减少这种情况。这些直觉水平的信念,而不是通过图标阵列传达的客观存活率信息,是对后续治疗选择的预测。结论图标数组不能缓冲动机推理不是由于它们的频率格式。此外,研究结果强调了测量可能性的肠道水平解释的有用性,这可以揭示驱动患者治疗选择的心理机制的重要见解。HighlightsIcon数组可以直观地描述频率,通常被推荐为在卫生环境中传达风险信息的最佳做法。然而,最近的研究发现,它们在减少人们在处理可能性信息时进行动机推理的程度方面是无效的。我们发现,图标阵列的频率格式——描绘一组人的结果率,而不是特定病例的概率——并不是它们在减少乐观偏见方面无效的主要原因。我们还发现,对可能性的直觉水平信念的测量特别适合于检测乐观偏见,但也能预测随后的治疗决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信