GretherDMPlottCR. Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon. Am Econ Rev. 1979;69(4):623–38.
2.
HennemanLMarteauTMTimmermansDRM. Clinical geneticists’ and genetic counselors’ views on the communication of genetic risks: a qualitative study. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73(1):42–9.
3.
GrimesDASnivelyGR. Patients’ understanding of medical risks: implications for genetic counseling. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;93:910–4.
4.
CuiteCLWeinsteinNDEmmonsKColditzGA. A test of numeric formats for communicating risk probabilities. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(3):377–84.
5.
SchwartzLMWoloshinSWelchHG. Using a drug facts box to communicate drug benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(8):516–27.
6.
PighinSSavadoriLBarilliECremonesiLFerrariMBonnefonJ-F. The 1-in-X effect on the subjective assessment of medical probabilities. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(5):721–729.
7.
FagerlinAUbelPASmithDMZikmund-FisherBJ. Making numbers matter: present and future research in risk communication. Am J Health Behav. 2007;31(Suppl. 1):S47–S56.
8.
GalesicMGarcia-RetameroRGigerenzerG. Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: overcoming low numeracy. Health Psychol. 2009;28(2):210–6.
9.
HawleySTZikmund-FisherBJUbelPAJankovicALucasTFagerlinA. The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73(3):448–55.
10.
ReynaVF. How people make decisions that involve risk: a dual-processes approach. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2004;13(2):60–6.
11.
KunreutherHNovemskyNKahnemanD. Making low probabilities useful. J Risk Uncertain. 2001;23(2):103–20.
