Suchergebnisse

To understand consumers' investment decisions, national surveys such as the Health and Retirement Study elicit consumers' expectations about stock market movements. Analyses of stock market expectations show substantial heterogeneity between consumers. It is commonly speculated that this heterogeneity reflects variations in the beliefs underlying consumers' stock market expectations, that is, their "mental models." In an online survey of American adults,we find that consumers think about different economic and political issues when generating stock market expectations for the next year. Regardless of the specific issues on which consumers focused, however, their assessments of the issues seemed to reflect a single underlying perception of changes in economic conditions. Regression analyses show that variation in stock market expectations is related to consumers' overall assessments of economic developments. We discuss the implications of these results for economic surveys and investment communications.

AbstractSubjective probabilities are central to risk assessment, decision making, and risk communication efforts. Surveys measuring probability judgments have traditionally used open‐ended response modes, asking participants to generate a response between 0% and 100%. A typical finding is the seemingly excessive use of 50%, perhaps as an expression of "I don't know." In an online survey with a nationally representative sample of the Dutch population, we examined the effect of response modes on the use of 50% and other focal responses, predictive validity, and respondents' survey evaluations. Respondents assessed the probability of dying, getting the flu, and experiencing other health‐related events. They were randomly assigned to a traditional open‐ended response mode, a visual linear scale ranging from 0% to 100%, or a version of that visual linear scale on which a magnifier emerged after clicking on it. We found that, compared to the open‐ended response mode, the visual linear and magnifier scale each reduced the use of 50%, 0%, and 100% responses, especially among respondents with low numeracy. Responses given with each response mode were valid, in terms of significant correlations with health behavior and outcomes. Where differences emerged, the visual scales seemed to have slightly better validity than the open‐ended response mode. Both high‐numerate and low‐numerate respondents' evaluations of the surveys were highest for the visual linear scale. Our results have implications for subjective probability elicitation and survey design.

AbstractGraphs show promise for improving communications about different types of risks, including health risks, financial risks, and climate risks. However, graph designs that are effective at meeting one important risk communication goal (promoting risk‐avoidant behaviors) can at the same time compromise another key goal (improving risk understanding). We developed and tested simple bar graphs aimed at accomplishing these two goals simultaneously. We manipulated two design features in graphs, namely, whether graphs depicted the number of people affected by a risk and those at risk of harm ("foreground+background") versus only those affected ("foreground‐only"), and the presence versus absence of simple numerical labels above bars. Foreground‐only displays were associated with larger risk perceptions and risk‐avoidant behavior (i.e., willingness to take a drug for heart attack prevention) than foreground+background displays, regardless of the presence of labels. Foreground‐only graphs also hindered risk understanding when labels were not present. However, the presence of labels significantly improved understanding, eliminating the detrimental effect of foreground‐only displays. Labels also led to more positive user evaluations of the graphs, but did not affect risk‐avoidant behavior. Using process modeling we identified mediators (risk perceptions, understanding, user evaluations) that explained the effect of display type on risk‐avoidant behavior. Our findings contribute new evidence to the graph design literature: unlike what was previously feared, we demonstrate that it is possible to design foreground‐only graphs that promote intentions for behavior change without a detrimental effect on risk understanding. Implications for the design of graphical risk communications and decision support are discussed.

AbstractThe atmospheric residence time of carbon dioxide is hundreds of years, many orders of magnitude longer than that of common air pollution, which is typically hours to a few days. However, randomly selected respondents in a mail survey in Allegheny County, PA (N = 119) and in a national survey conducted with MTurk (N = 1,013) judged the two to be identical (in decades), considerably overestimating the residence time of air pollution and drastically underestimating that of carbon dioxide. Moreover, while many respondents believed that action is needed today to avoid climate change (regardless of cause), roughly a quarter held the view that if climate change is real and serious, we will be able to stop it in the future when it happens, just as we did with common air pollution. In addition to assessing respondents' understanding of how long carbon dioxide and common air pollution stay in the atmosphere, we also explored the extent to which people correctly identified causes of climate change and how their beliefs affect support for action. With climate change at the forefront of politics and mainstream media, informing discussions of policy is increasingly important. Confusion about the causes and consequences of climate change, and especially about carbon dioxide's long atmospheric residence time, could have profound implications for sustained support of policies to achieve reductions in carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases.

If hurricane modification were to become a feasible strategy for potentially reducing hurricane damages, it would likely generate public discourse about whether to support its implementation. To facilitate an informed and constructive discourse, policymakers need to understand how people perceive hurricane modification. Here, we examine Florida residents' perceptions of hurricane modification techniques that aim to alter path and wind speed. Following the mental models approach, we conducted a survey study about public perceptions of hurricane modification that was guided by formative interviews on the topic. We report a set of four primary findings. First, hurricane modification was perceived as a relatively ineffective strategy for damage reduction, compared to other strategies for damage reduction. Second, hurricane modification was expected to lead to changes in projected hurricane path, but not necessarily to the successful reduction of projected hurricane strength. Third, more anger was evoked when a hurricane was described as having changed from the initially forecasted path or strength after an attempted modification. Fourth, unlike what we expected, participants who more strongly agreed with statements that recognized the uncertainty inherent in forecasts reported more rather than less anger at scientists across hurricane modification scenarios. If the efficacy of intensity‐reduction techniques can be increased, people may be willing to support hurricane modification. However, such an effort would need to be combined with open and honest communications to members of the general public.