Novel diseases bring with them new fears, novel public health measures, and immense uncertainty. The uncertainty, coupled with distrust and politization of science, can lead to confusion about the importance of adopting interventions such as social distancing. We tested the impact of a well-designed visualization on attitudes towards and intentions to engage in social distancing. The visualization showed both the outcomes of social distancing and the process by which social distancing slowed the rate of disease transmission. We found that compared to visualizations that only showed the outcomes, process visualization increased the intention to engage in social distancing and the positive attitudes towards social distancing. The visualizations were also compelling as they were contained within the most-viewed on-line Washington Post article to date.
FagerlinA.Zikmund-FisherB. J.UbelP. A. (2011). Helping patients decide: ten steps to better risk communication. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 103(19), 1436–1443. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djr318
3.
FansherM.AdkinsT.LalwaniP.QuirkM.BodurogluA.LewisR.ShahP.JonidesJ. (in press). How well do ordinary Americans forecast the growth of COVID-19? Memory & Cognition.
4.
FlemmingD.FeinkohlI.CressU.KimmerleJ. (2015). Individual uncertainty and the uncertainty of science: The impact of perceived conflict and general self-efficacy on the perception of tentativeness and credibility of scientific information. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1859.
5.
GalesicM.Garcia-RetameroR.GigerenzerG. (2009). Using Icon Arrays to Communicate Medical Risks: Overcoming Low Numeracy. Health Psychology, 28(2), 210-216.
6.
GoberP.KirkwoodC. W.BallingR. C.Jr.EllisA. W.DeitrickS. (2009). Water planning under climatic uncertainty in Phoenix: Why we need a new paradigm. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 100, 1–17. doi:10.1080/00045601003595420
7.
HerringJ.VanDykeM. S.CumminsR. G.MeltonF. (2017). Communicating local climate risks online through an interactive data visualization. Environmental Communication, 11(1), 90–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2016.1176946
8.
KrauseN. M.BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A.XenosM. A.FrankeK. (2019). Trends—Americans’ trust in science and scientists. Public Opinion Quarterly, 83(4), 817-836.
NancekivellS. E.SunX.GelmanS. A.ShahP. (2021). A Slippery Myth: How Learning Style Beliefs Shape Reasoning about Multimodal Instruction and Related Scientific Evidence. Cognitive Science, 45(10), e13047.
11.
NissonC.EarlA. (2020). The theories of reasoned action and planned behavior. The Wiley Encyclopedia of Health Psychology, 755-761.
12.
PlohlN.MusilB. (2020). Modeling compliance with COVID-19 prevention guidelines: The critical role of trust in science. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 0(0), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2020.1772988
13.
RomanoA.SotisC.DominioniG.GuidiS. (2020). The scale of COVID-19 graphs affects understanding, attitudes, and policy preferences. Health Economics, 29(11), 1482-1494.
14.
SheeranP. (2002). Intention—behavior relations: a conceptual and empirical review. European review of social psychology, 12(1), 1-36.
TurchioeM.GrossmanL. V.MyersA. C.BaikD.GoyalP.Masterson CreberR. M. (2020). Visual analogies, not graphs, increase patients’ comprehension of changes in their health status. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 27(5), 677689.
19.
WagnerW.FisherE.PascualP. (2010). Misunderstanding models in environmental and public health regulation. New York University Environmental Law Journal, 18(2), 293–356.
20.
WagenaarW. A.TimmersH. (1979). The pond-and-duckweed problem; Three experiments on the misperception of exponential growth. Acta Psychologica, 43(3), 239-251.
21.
WallsA. L.HaoC.SubramonyamH.BodurogluAShahP.WittJ.(under review). “40-Percent Chance of Exposure to COVID-19”: Can Data-Walkthroughs Mitigate Backfire Effects of Surprising Data?
