The rise and fall of scary numbers: The effect of perceived trends on future estimates, severity ratings, and help-allocations in a cancer context

Statistical information such as death risk estimates is frequently used for illustrating the magnitude of a problem. Such mortality statistics are however easier to evaluate if presented next to an earlier estimate, as the two data points together will illustrate an upward or downward change. How are people influenced by such changes? In seven experiments, participants read mortality statistics (e.g., number of yearly deaths or expert-estimated death risks) made at two points of time about various cancer types. Each cancer type was manipulated to have either a downward trajectory (e.g., the estimated death risk was 37% in 2012, and was adjusted downward to 22% in 2014), an upward trajectory (e.g., 7% → 22%), or a flat trajectory (e.g., 22% → 22%). For each cancer type, participants estimated future mortality statistics and rated the perceived severity. They also allocated real money between projects aimed at preventing the different cancer types. Participants’ responses indicated that they thought that a trend made out of two data points would continue in the future. People also perceived cancer types with similar present mortality statistics as more severe and allocated more money to them when they had an upward trajectory compared to a flat or downward trajectory. Although there are boundary conditions, we conclude that people's severity ratings and helping behavior can be influenced by trend information even when such information is based on only two data points. (Less)

[1]  Daniel Västfjäll,et al.  Compassion Fade: Affect and Charity Are Greatest for a Single Child in Need , 2014, PloS one.

[2]  Stephan Lewandowsky Popular Consensus , 2011, Psychological science.

[3]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Numerical Nudging: Using an Accelerating Score to Enhance Performance , 2017, Psychological science.

[4]  Ellen Peters,et al.  Same numbers, different meanings: How numeracy influences the importance of numbers for pro-social behavior , 2013 .

[5]  R. Bekkers Trust, Accreditation, and Philanthropy in the Netherlands , 2003 .

[6]  Chad R. Mortensen,et al.  Trending Norms: A Lever for Encouraging Behaviors Performed by the Minority , 2019 .

[7]  K. Teigen,et al.  When probabilities change: perceptions and implications of trends in uncertain climate forecasts , 2019 .

[8]  Daniel M. Oppenheimer,et al.  The Identifiable Victim Effect: Causes and Boundary Conditions , 2011 .

[9]  André Mata Proportion dominance in valuing lives: The role of deliberative thinking , 2016, Judgment and Decision Making.

[10]  D. Västfjäll,et al.  Attitudes and Donation Behavior When Reading Positive and Negative Charity Appeals , 2018 .

[11]  P. Slovic Choice Between Equally Valued Alternatives. , 1975 .

[12]  V. Reyna CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE How People Make Decisions That Involve Risk A Dual-Processes Approach , 2022 .

[13]  T. Gilovich,et al.  The tide that lifts all focal boats: Asymmetric predictions of ascent and descent in rankings , 2016, Judgment and Decision Making.

[14]  M. Bäckström,et al.  Choice-justifications after allocating resources in helping dilemmas , 2017, Judgment and Decision Making.

[15]  Stephen M. Johnson,et al.  Insensitivity to the Value of Human Life: A Study of Psychophysical Numbing , 1997 .

[16]  Paul Slovic,et al.  “If I look at the mass I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide , 2007, Judgment and Decision Making.

[17]  Nigel Harvey,et al.  Trend damping: Under-adjustment, experimental artifact, or adaptation to features of the natural environment? , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[18]  Luc Anselin,et al.  Visualizing Seismic Risk and Uncertainty , 2008, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[19]  A. Tversky,et al.  Contingent weighting in judgment and choice , 1988 .

[20]  Deborah A. Small,et al.  Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. , 2007 .

[21]  Ulf Böckenholt,et al.  Single Paper Meta-Analysis: Benefits For Study Summary, Theory-Testing, and Replicability , 2017 .

[22]  R. Scheines,et al.  The donor is in the details , 2013 .

[23]  Nathan C. Pettit,et al.  Rising Stars and Sinking Ships , 2013, Psychological science.

[24]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  Responsibility: The tie that binds , 2012 .

[25]  D. Kahneman A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. , 2003, The American psychologist.

[26]  Amanda K Montoya,et al.  Two-condition within-participant statistical mediation analysis: A path-analytic framework. , 2017, Psychological methods.

[27]  P. Slovic,et al.  Pseudoinefficacy: negative feelings from children who cannot be helped reduce warm glow for children who can be helped , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[28]  June Cotte,et al.  Enhancing or disrupting guilt: the role of ad credibility and perceived manipulative intent , 2005 .

[29]  Sam J. Maglio,et al.  Revising probability estimates: Why increasing likelihood means increasing impact. , 2016, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[30]  Daniel M. Bartels,et al.  Proportion Dominance: The Generality and Variability of Favoring Relative Savings Over Absolute Savings , 2006 .

[31]  Peter Kerkhof,et al.  Improving the Effectiveness of Fundraising Messages: The Impact of Charity Goal Attainment, Message Framing, and Evidence on Persuasion , 2008 .

[32]  George Loewenstein,et al.  Goal gradient in helping behavior , 2013 .

[33]  V. Reyna,et al.  Fuzzy-trace theory: An interim synthesis , 1995 .

[34]  K. Teigen,et al.  Forecasting forecasts: The trend effect , 2015, Judgment and Decision Making.

[35]  K. Markman,et al.  Psychological Momentum: Intuitive Physics and Naive Beliefs , 2007, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[36]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  General Evaluability Theory , 2010, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[37]  W. Hays Statistics, 4th ed. , 1988 .

[38]  P. Slovic,et al.  Numeracy as a precursor to pro-social behavior: The impact of numeracy and presentation format on the cognitive mechanisms underlying donation decisions , 2011, Judgment and Decision Making.

[39]  T. Lesner,et al.  The identifiable victim effect in charitable giving: evidence from a natural field experiment , 2014 .

[40]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article Numeracy and Decision Making , 2022 .

[41]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  Preferences for sequences of outcomes. , 1993 .

[42]  J. K. Murnighan,et al.  Life or Death Decisions: Framing the Call for Help , 2013, PloS one.

[43]  P. Slovic,et al.  Argument-inconsistency in charity appeals: Statistical information about the scope of the problem decrease helping toward a single identified victim but not helping toward many non-identified victims in a refugee crisis context , 2016 .

[44]  M. Wik,et al.  Information and donations to development aid projects , 2017 .

[45]  T. Hubbard Forms of momentum across space: Representational, operational, and attentional , 2014, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[46]  Ioannis Evangelidis,et al.  The Number of Fatalities Drives Disaster Aid , 2013, Psychological science.

[47]  F. Bolger,et al.  Graphs versus tables: Effects of data presentation format on judgemental forecasting , 1996 .

[48]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Bringing meaning to numbers: the impact of evaluative categories on decisions. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.