Decision Making for Risk Management: A Comparison of Graphical Methods for Presenting Quantitative Uncertainty

Previous research has shown that people err when making decisions aided by probability information. Surprisingly, there has been little exploration into the accuracy of decisions made based on many commonly used probabilistic display methods. Two experiments examined the ability of a comprehensive set of such methods to effectively communicate critical information to a decision maker and influence confidence in decision making. The second experiment investigated the performance of these methods under time pressure, a situational factor known to exacerbate judgmental errors. Ten commonly used graphical display methods were randomly assigned to participants. Across eight scenarios in which a probabilistic outcome was described, participants were asked questions regarding graph interpretation (e.g., mean) and made behavioral choices (i.e., act; do not act) based on the provided information indicated that decision-maker accuracy differed by graphical method; error bars and boxplots led to greatest mean estimation and behavioral choice accuracy whereas complementary cumulative probability distribution functions were associated with the highest probability estimation accuracy. Under time pressure, participant performance decreased when making behavioral choices.

[1]  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.

[2]  Ola Svenson,et al.  Judgment and decision making under time pressure: studies and findings , 1993 .

[3]  Kevin A. Makinson,et al.  A review of contemporary methods for the presentation of scientific uncertainty. , 2012, Health physics.

[4]  P. Slovic,et al.  Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust. , 1995, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[5]  Eric R. Stone,et al.  Effects of numerical and graphical displays on professed risk-taking behavior. , 1997 .

[6]  D. Rubin,et al.  Statistical Analysis with Missing Data , 1988 .

[7]  B Kleinmuntz,et al.  Why we still use our heads instead of formulas: toward an integrative approach. , 1990, Psychological bulletin.

[8]  D. Ariely,et al.  A timely account of the role of duration in decision making. , 2001, Acta psychologica.

[9]  David R. Schwartz,et al.  Optional Stopping Performance under Graphic and Numeric CRT Formatting , 1984 .

[10]  R. Dawes.  Behavioral decision making and judgment. , 1998 .

[11]  David J. Weiss,et al.  Dynamic Decision Theory and Probabilistic Information Processing , 2008 .

[12]  M. Zeelenberg,et al.  The Discounting of Ambiguous Information in Economic Decision Making , 2003 .

[13]  Susan S. Kirschenbaum,et al.  Effects of Graphic and Verbal Probability Information on Command Decision Making , 1994 .

[14]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Workload and Reliability of Predictor Displays in Aircraft Traffic Avoidance , 2000 .

[15]  Ward Edwards,et al.  Dynamic Decision Theory and Probabilistic Information Processings1 , 1962 .

[16]  M. Granger Morgan,et al.  Graphical Communication of Uncertain Quantities to Nontechnical People , 1987 .

[17]  O. Svenson,et al.  Judgment and Decision Making Under Time Pressure , 1993 .