CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 24Risk Perception and ManagementPublic Relations and Crisis CommunicationSafety Warnings and Signage

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The effect of communication design and recipients’ numeracy on responses to UXO risk

Bruine de Bruin, Wändi, Stone, Eric R., Gibson, Jacqueline MacDonald, Fischbeck, Paul S., Shoraka, Mohammad Baradaran·2013·Journal of Risk Research
DOI 10.1080/13669877.2013.788055
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Risk communications aim to affect recipients’ understanding of specific risks, their trust and liking of the materials, affective responses, and associated behaviors. We developed communications about the number of construction workers expected to get hurt if building were permitted at the former Fort Ord weapons training site in California, despite its contamination with unexploded ordnance (UXO). We created eight versions, which presented text only or bar graph with text, the numerator of the risk (the number of workers expected to be hurt) with or without emphasis on the denominator (the total number of workers), and uncertainty information (the probability that different numbers of workers would be hurt) or not. Recipients varied in numeracy. We examined the effect of these communication features on recipients’ (1) understanding, (2) trust and liking of the materials, (3) affective responses, and (4) support for construction and for construction workers if construction were to be implemented. Low-numerate individuals showed less understanding across all versions of the communication, yet preferred graph-with-text displays relatively more than text-only displays as compared to high-numerate individuals. Emphasizing the denominator increased understanding of text-only displays but decreased support for construction and construction workers for all communication versions. Moreover, recipients were more supportive of construction and construction workers after receiving text-…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13669877.2013.788055

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. Ancker J. S., 2006, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 13, 608, 10.1197/jamia.M2115 · DOI
  2. Baron R. M., 1986, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173, 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Burkell J., 2004, Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92, 200
  4. Cronbach L. J., 1951, Psychometrika, 16, 297, 10.1007/BF02310555 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Department of Defense, 2006, Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress, Fiscal Year 2005
  6. DeVellis R. F., 2003, Scale Development. Theory and Applications
  7. Egan, C. 1999. “Graphical Displays and Comparative Energy Information: What Do People Understand and Prefer?” InEuropean Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ECEEE) Summer Study Proceedings, 2–12. Washington, D.C.
  8. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001, UXO Incident Report
  9. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007, Munitions and Explosives of Concern Hazard Assessment Guidance: Public Review Draft, 4
  10. Fagerlin A., 2007, American Journal of Health Behavior, 31, S47, 10.5993/AJHB.31.s1.7 · DOI
  11. Fischhoff B., 2011, Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based User’s Guide
  12. Garcia-Retamero R., 2010, Social Science and Medicine, 70, 1019, 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.11.031 · DOI
  13. Gigerenzer G., 2003, British Medical Journal, 327, 741, 10.1136/bmj.327.7417.741 · DOI
  14. Gurmankin A. D., 2004, Medical Decision Making, 24, 265, 10.1177/0272989X04265482 · DOI
  15. Hess R., 2011, Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 263, 10.1017/S1930297500001467 · DOI
  16. Ibrekk H., 1987, Risk Analysis, 7, 519, 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1987.tb00488.x · DOI
  17. Johnson B. B., 1995, Risk Analysis, 4, 485, 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00341.x · DOI · Paper page
  18. Krupnick A., 2006, Not a Sure Thing: Making Regulatory Choices under Uncertainty
  19. Lipkus I. M., 2007, Medical Decision Making, 27, 696, 10.1177/0272989X07307271 · DOI
  20. Lipkus I. M., 1999, Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 25, 149, 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jncimonographs.a024191 · DOI
  21. Lipkus I. M., 2009, Health Education and Behavior, 36, 1065, 10.1177/1090198109341533 · DOI
  22. Lipkus I. M., 2001, Medical Decision Making, 21, 37, 10.1177/0272989X0102100105 · DOI
  23. MacDonald J. A., 2005, The Challenge of Transferring Army BRAC Lands Containing Unexploded Ordnance: Lessons Learned and Options for the Future
  24. MacDonald J. A., 2003, Unexploded Ordnance: A Critical Review of Risk Assessment Methods
  25. MacDonald J. A., 2006, Environmental Science and Technology, 40, 931, 10.1021/es051168t · DOI
  26. MacDonald J. A., 2008, Risk Analysis, 28, 825, 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01068.x · DOI
  27. MacDonald J. A., 2009, Environmental Science and Technology, 43, 259, 10.1021/es8014106 · DOI
  28. Miron-Shatz T., 2009, Journal of Health Communication, 14, 439, 10.1080/10810730903032986 · DOI
  29. Neuhauser L., 2011, Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based User’s guide, 129
  30. Parrott R., 2005, Health Communication Research, 31, 423
  31. Patt A. G., 2003, Climatic Change, 61, 17, 10.1023/A:1026314523443 · DOI
  32. Peters E., 2007, Medical Care Research and Review, 64, 169, 10.1177/10775587070640020301 · DOI
  33. Peters E., 2009, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 213, 10.1037/a0016978 · DOI
  34. Peters E., 2007, Health Affairs, 26, 741, 10.1377/hlthaff.26.3.741 · DOI
  35. Peters E., 2006, Psychological Science, 17, 407, 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01720.x · DOI · Paper page
  36. Preacher K.J., 2008, Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879, 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Reyna V. F., 2004, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 60, 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00275.x · DOI
  38. Schapira M.M., 2001, Medical Decision Making, 21, 459, 10.1177/0272989X0102100604 · DOI
  39. Schirillo J., 2005, Risk Analysis, 25, 555, 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00624.x · DOI
  40. Schwartz L. M., 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine, 27, 966, 10.7326/0003-4819-127-11-199712010-00003 · DOI
  41. Stone E. R., 2003, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90, 19, 10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00003-7 · DOI
  42. Stone E. R., 1994, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60, 387, 10.1006/obhd.1994.1091 · DOI
  43. Visschers V. H. M., 2009, Risk Analysis, 29, 267, 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01137.x · DOI
  44. Wallsten T. J., 1986, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 348, 10.1037/0096-3445.115.4.348 · DOI
  45. Wardekker J. A., 2008, Environmental Science and Policy, 11, 627, 10.1016/j.envsci.2008.05.005 · DOI
  46. Weinstein N. D., 1993, Risk Analysis, 13, 103, 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00733.x · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 24

Metadata

Authors
Bruine de Bruin, W., Stone, E. R., Gibson, J. M., Fischbeck, P. S., & Shoraka, M. B.
Affiliations
  • Wake Forest University (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Risk Research
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2013-09
Volume
16
Issue
8
Pages
981-1004
ISSN
  • 1366-9877 (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-4461
DOI
10.1080/13669877.2013.788055
OpenAlex
W2072847182
Cited by
24
References
2
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
5.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Risk Research (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Public Relations and Crisis Communication
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Safety Warnings and Signage
Keywords
unexploded ordnance, risk communication, numeracy, risk perception, Fort Ord, bar charts, uncertainty information, risk framing, trust in communication, construction workers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The effect of communication design and recipients’ numeracy on responses to UXO risk. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/13669877.2013.788055
The paper
Bruine de Bruin, W., Stone, E. R., Gibson, J. M., Fischbeck, P. S., & Shoraka, M. B. (2013). The effect of communication design and recipients’ numeracy on responses to UXO risk. Journal of Risk Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2013.788055