Animated Graphics for Comparing Two Risks: A Cautionary Tale

Background The increasing use of computer-administered risk communications affords the potential to replace static risk graphics with animations that use motion cues to reinforce key risk messages. Research on the use of animated graphics, however, has yielded mixed findings, and little research exists to identify the specific animations that might improve risk knowledge and patients’ decision making. Objective To test whether viewing animated forms of standard pictograph (icon array) risk graphics displaying risks of side effects would improve people’s ability to select the treatment with the lowest risk profile, as compared with viewing static images of the same risks. Methods A total of 4198 members of a demographically diverse Internet panel read a scenario about two hypothetical treatments for thyroid cancer. Each treatment was described as equally effective but varied in side effects (with one option slightly better than the other). Participants were randomly assigned to receive all risk information in 1 of 10 pictograph formats in a quasi-factorial design. We compared a control condition of static grouped icons with a static scattered icon display and with 8 Flash-based animated versions that incorporated different combinations of (1) building the risk 1 icon at a time, (2) having scattered risk icons settle into a group, or (3) having scattered risk icons shuffle themselves (either automatically or by user control). We assessed participants’ ability to choose the better treatment (choice accuracy), their gist knowledge of side effects (knowledge accuracy), and their graph evaluation ratings, controlling for subjective numeracy and need for cognition. Results When compared against static grouped-icon arrays, no animations significantly improved any outcomes, and most showed significant performance degradations. However, participants who received animations of grouped icons in which at-risk icons appeared 1 at a time performed as well on all outcomes as the static grouped-icon control group. Displays with scattered icons (static or animated) performed particularly poorly unless they included the settle animation that allowed users to view event icons grouped. Conclusions Many combinations of animation, especially those with scattered icons that shuffle randomly, appear to inhibit knowledge accuracy in this context. Static pictographs that group risk icons, however, perform very well on measures of knowledge and choice accuracy. These findings parallel recent evidence in other data communication contexts that less can be more—that is, that simpler, more focused information presentation can result in improved understanding. Decision aid designers and health educators should proceed with caution when considering the use of animated risk graphics to compare two risks, given that evidence-based, static risk graphics appear optimal.

[1]  Margaret M Hansen,et al.  Versatile, Immersive, Creative and Dynamic Virtual 3-D Healthcare Learning Environments: A Review of the Literature , 2008, Journal of medical Internet research.

[2]  M. Galesic,et al.  Graph Literacy , 2011, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[3]  Abdallah Namoune,et al.  Getting the message across: visual attention, aesthetic design and what users remember , 2008, DIS '08.

[4]  G Gigerenzer,et al.  The Psychology of Good Judgment , 1996, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[5]  B. Rimer,et al.  General Performance on a Numeracy Scale among Highly Educated Samples , 2001, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[6]  M. Galesic,et al.  Who profits from visual aids: overcoming challenges in people's understanding of risks [corrected]. , 2010, Social science & medicine.

[7]  Y. Hanoch,et al.  Presentation Format Affects Comprehension and Risk Assessment: The Case of Prenatal Screening , 2009, Journal of health communication.

[8]  P. Slovic,et al.  Numeracy skill and the communication, comprehension, and use of risk-benefit information. , 2007, Health affairs.

[9]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Animation: can it facilitate? , 2002, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[10]  Angela Fagerlin,et al.  Improving understanding of adjuvant therapy options by using simpler risk graphics , 2008, Cancer.

[11]  R. Mayer,et al.  Animation as an Aid to Multimedia Learning , 2002 .

[12]  P. Ubel,et al.  The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices. , 2008, Patient education and counseling.

[13]  C. F. Kao,et al.  The efficient assessment of need for cognition. , 1984, Journal of personality assessment.

[14]  Angela Fagerlin,et al.  Risky feelings: why a 6% risk of cancer does not always feel like 6%. , 2010, Patient education and counseling.

[15]  T. Fahey,et al.  Evidence based purchasing: understanding results of clinical trials and systematic reviews , 1995, BMJ.

[16]  H. Tabbers,et al.  Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: effects of modality and cueing. , 2004, The British journal of educational psychology.

[17]  D. Berry,et al.  Effects of active information processing on the understanding of risk information , 2005 .

[18]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  Relative effectiveness of animated and static diagrams: An effect of learner prior knowledge , 2008, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[19]  Kar Yan Tam,et al.  Does Animation Attract Online Users' Attention? The Effects of Flash on Information Search Performance and Perceptions , 2004, Inf. Syst. Res..

[20]  Andrew N Freedman,et al.  Representing randomness in the communication of individualized cancer risk estimates: effects on cancer risk perceptions, worry, and subjective uncertainty about risk. , 2012, Patient education and counseling.

[21]  Angela Fagerlin,et al.  Clinical Implications of Numeracy: Theory and Practice , 2008, Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine.

[22]  Jessica S. Ancker,et al.  Effect of Arrangement of Stick Figures on Estimates of Proportion in Risk Graphics , 2011, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[23]  M. Brundage,et al.  Further Insight into the Perception of Quantitative Information: Judgments of Gist in Treatment Decisions , 2007, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[24]  Erika A. Waters,et al.  Reducing aversion to side effects in preventive medical treatment decisions. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[25]  Cara L Cuite,et al.  A Test of Numeric Formats for Communicating Risk Probabilities , 2008, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[26]  James Minogue,et al.  Investigating the impact of video games on high school students' engagement and learning about genetics , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[27]  Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher,et al.  The benefits of discussing adjuvant therapies one at a time instead of all at once , 2011, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[28]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  When static media promote active learning: annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia instruction. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[29]  Winston R. Sieck,et al.  Foreground:background salience: Explaining the effects of graphical displays on risk avoidance , 2003 .

[30]  P. Ubel,et al.  Measuring Numeracy without a Math Test: Development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale , 2007, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[31]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Risk as Feelings , 2001, Psychological bulletin.

[32]  W. Gaissmaier,et al.  Numbers can be worth a thousand pictures: individual differences in understanding graphical and numerical representations of health-related information. , 2012, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

[33]  E. Weber,et al.  Effects of Game-Like Interactive Graphics on Risk Perceptions and Decisions , 2011, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[34]  Time to Retire the 1-in-X Risk Format , 2011, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[35]  P. Ubel,et al.  Validation of the Subjective Numeracy Scale: Effects of Low Numeracy on Comprehension of Risk Communications and Utility Elicitations , 2007, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[36]  H. Witteman,et al.  Cool but Counterproductive: Interactive, Web-Based Risk Communications Can Backfire , 2011, Journal of medical Internet research.

[37]  P. Ubel,et al.  A Demonstration of ‘‘Less Can Be More’’ in Risk Graphics , 2010, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[38]  Erika A. Waters,et al.  Formats for Improving Risk Communication in Medical Tradeoff Decisions , 2006, Journal of health communication.

[39]  C. McHorney,et al.  Frequency or Probability? A Qualitative Study of Risk Communication Formats Used in Health Care , 2001, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[40]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Less Is More in Presenting Quality Information to Consumers , 2007, Medical care research and review : MCRR.

[41]  Erol Özçelik,et al.  Why does signaling enhance multimedia learning? Evidence from eye movements , 2010, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[42]  G. Gigerenzer,et al.  Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: overcoming low numeracy. , 2009, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

[43]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  Risk communication with pictographs: The role of numeracy and graph processing , 2011, Judgment and Decision Making.