The Effect of Information Formats and Incidental Affect on Prior and Posterior Probability Judgments

Abstract

Background. Interpreting medical test results involves judging probabilities, including making Bayesian inferences such as judging the positive and negative predictive values. Although prior work has shown that experience formats (e.g., slide shows of representative patient cases) produce more accurate Bayesian inferences than description formats (e.g., verbal statistical summaries), there are disadvantages of using the experience format for real-world medical decision making that may be solved by presenting relevant information in a 2 × 2 table format. Furthermore, medical decisions are often made in stressful contexts, yet little is known about the influence of acute stress on the accuracy of Bayesian inferences. This study aimed to a) replicate the description-experience format effect on probabilistic judgments; b) examine judgment accuracy across description, experience, and a new 2 × 2 table format; and c) assess the effect of acute stress on probability judgments. Method. The study employed a 2 (stress condition) × 3 (format) factorial between-subjects design. Participants ( N = 165) completed a Bayesian inference task in which information about a medical screening test was presented in 1 of 3 formats (description, experience, 2 × 2 table), following a laboratory stress induction or a no-stress control condition. Results. Overall, the 2 × 2 table format produced the most accurate probability judgments, including Bayesian inferences, compared with the description and experience formats. Stress had no effect on judgment accuracy. Discussion. Given its accuracy and practicality, a 2 × 2 table may be better suited than description or experience formats for communicating probabilistic information in medical contexts.