Examining Insensitivity to Probability in Evidence-Based Communication of Relative Risks: The Role of Affect and Communication Format.

Affect can influence judgments of event riskiness and use of risk-related information. Two studies (Ns: 85 and 100) examined the insensitivity-to-probability effect-where people discount probability information when scenarios are affect-rich-applying it to evidence-informed risk communication. We additionally investigated whether this effect is moderated by format, based on predictions from the evaluability and pattern-recognition literatures, suggesting that graphical formats may attenuate insensitivity to probability. Participants completed a prior beliefs questionnaire (Study 1), and risk perception booklet (both studies) that presented identical statistical information about the relative risks associated with two scenarios-one with an affect-rich outcome, the other an affect-poorer outcome. In Study 1, this was presented graphically. In Study 2, information was presented in one of three formats: written, tabular, or graphical. Participants provided their perceptions of the risk for each scenario at a range of risk-levels. The affect-rich scenario was perceived as higher in risk, and, importantly, despite presenting identical relative risk information in both scenarios, was associated with a reduced sensitivity to probability information (both studies). These differences were predicted by participants' prior beliefs concerning the scenario events (Study 1) and were larger for the single-item written format than graphical format (Study 2). The findings illustrate that insensitivity to probability information can occur in evidence-informed risk communications and highlight how communication format can moderate this effect. This interplay between affect and format therefore reflects an important consideration for information designers and researchers.

Mapping the public first-aid training landscape: uptake, knowledge, confidence and willingness to deliver first aid in disasters/emergencies-a scoping review.

The above article from Disasters, published online on 24 June 2019 in Wiley Online Library (http://wileyonlinelibrary.com) has been withdrawn by agreement among the authors, the Journal editors and John Wiley & Sons Inc. on behalf of ODI. The withdrawal has been agreed because this is a duplicate of an article that has been published in Disasters Volume 44 Issue 1.

Mapping the public first-aid training landscape: a scoping review.

While the public can play a vital role in saving lives during emergencies, intervention is only effective if people have the skills, confidence, and willingness to help. This review employs a five-stage framework to systematically analyse first aid and emergency helping literature from 22 countries (predominately in Asia, Australia, Europe, and the United States). The review covers 54 articles that investigate public first-aid knowledge and uptake of first-aid training (40); public confidence in first-aid skills and willingness to help during an emergency (21); and barriers to or enablers of learning first aid and delivering first aid in an emergency (25). The findings identify high levels of perceived knowledge, confidence, and willingness to help, supporting the contention that the public can play a vital role during an emergency. However, the findings also point to low uptake levels, low tested skill-specific knowledge, and barriers to learning first aid and helping, indicating that the first-aid training landscape is in need of improvement.

Understanding the Effect of Information Presentation Order and Orientation on Information Search and Treatment Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Past research finds that treatment evaluations are more negative when risks are presented after benefits. This study investigates this order effect: manipulating tabular orientation and order of risk-benefit information, and examining information search order and gaze duration via eye-tracking. DESIGN: 108 (Study 1) and 44 (Study 2) participants viewed information about treatment risks and benefits, in either a horizontal (left-right) or vertical (above-below) orientation, with the benefits or risks presented first (left side or at top). For 4 scenarios, participants answered 6 treatment evaluation questions (1-7 scales) that were combined into overall evaluation scores. In addition, Study 2 collected eye-tracking data during the benefit-risk presentation. RESULTS: Participants tended to read one set of information (i.e., all risks or all benefits) before transitioning to the other. Analysis of order of fixations showed this tendency was stronger in the vertical (standardized mean rank difference further from 0, M = ± .88) than horizontal orientation ( M = ± 0.71). Approximately 50% of the time was spent reading benefits when benefits were shown first, but this was reduced to ~40% when risks were presented first (regression coefficient: B = -4.52, p < .001). Eye-tracking measures did not strongly predict treatment evaluations, although time percentage reading benefits positively predicted evaluation when holding other variables constant ( B = 0.02, p = .023). CONCLUSION: These results highlight the impact of seemingly arbitrary design choices on inspection order. For instance, presenting risks where they will be seen first leads to relatively less time spent considering treatment benefits. Other research suggests these changes to inspection order can influence multi-option and multi-attribute choices, and represent an area for future research.