Can number format impact perceived risk?
Pro Research Analysisby 
Searched over 200M research papers
Consensus Meter
Impact of Number Format on Perceived Risk
Introduction to Number Format and Risk Perception
The way numerical information is presented can significantly influence how people perceive risks. This phenomenon is particularly relevant in fields such as healthcare, public safety, and risk communication. Various studies have explored how different number formats—such as frequencies, percentages, and ratios—affect individuals' risk perceptions and decision-making processes.
Influence of Number Format on Risk Perception
Frequency vs. Percentage Formats
Research indicates that the format in which risk information is presented can alter perceived risk levels. For instance, less-numerate individuals tend to perceive lower risks when information is presented in percentage formats compared to frequency formats. Conversely, highly numerate individuals show consistent risk perceptions regardless of the format used. This suggests that frequency formats may amplify perceived risks among those with lower numeracy skills.
Absolute Frequency and Probability Formats
Another study examined how different number formats, such as absolute frequency, simple fractions, and percentages, interact with risk assertions to influence emotional and cognitive outcomes. The findings revealed that probability formats (simple fractions and percentages) tend to generate stronger emotional responses and more pessimistic risk assessments compared to absolute frequency formats. This highlights the role of emotional reactions in shaping risk perceptions when different numerical formats are used.
1-in-X Format
The 1-in-X format has been found to be particularly impactful. It is processed faster and perceived as conveying larger likelihoods compared to other formats like X-in-100 or percentages. This format also increases the willingness to engage in risky behaviors, such as participating in lotteries, more than other numerical formats. This suggests that the 1-in-X format may be more intuitive and impactful in conveying risk information.
Graphical and Mixed Formats
Graphical Formats
Graphical representations, such as bar charts and icon charts, can also influence risk perception. These formats tend to reduce perceived likelihoods among individuals with lower numeracy, while having no significant effect on those with higher numeracy. This indicates that graphical formats can be useful in mitigating perceived risks among less numerate individuals.
Mixed Formats
Combining different formats, such as proportions with total cases, can also affect risk perceptions. For example, presenting COVID-19 case information in a mixed format of proportion and total cases reduced perceived risks compared to using total cases alone. However, a mixed format of frequency and total cases did not produce similar results. This suggests that the choice of mixed formats can either amplify or mitigate perceived risks depending on the context.
Verbal vs. Numerical Descriptors
Verbal descriptors of risk, such as "unlikely" or "rare," can lead to higher and more variable risk perceptions compared to numerical descriptors. This effect has been observed in the context of COVID-19 vaccine-related risks, where verbal descriptors were associated with higher perceived risks of side effects like headache, fever, and myocarditis. This underscores the importance of using precise numerical descriptors to communicate risk more accurately.
Conclusion
The format in which numerical information is presented plays a crucial role in shaping perceived risks. Frequency formats tend to increase perceived risks among less numerate individuals, while the 1-in-X format is particularly effective in conveying larger likelihoods. Graphical and mixed formats can either amplify or mitigate perceived risks depending on the context and the numeracy of the audience. Verbal descriptors, although commonly used, can lead to higher and more variable risk perceptions compared to numerical descriptors. Health communicators and policymakers should carefully consider these findings to enhance the effectiveness of risk communication strategies.
Sources and full results
Most relevant research papers on this topic