Guidelines
Suggest edit

Show both affected and unaffected counts when accuracy is the goal

For part-whole risk communication in quantitative displays, use both numerator and denominator on the same graphic to improve fidelity and mitigate inflated risk impressions for readers making accuracy-focused judgments.

  • purpose:refine
  • basis:empirical
  • quality:fidelity
  • lever:layout-structure
  • operator:part-whole
  • communication:framing

advice

Show numerator and denominator together

Display the affected count together with the total at-risk count when the goal is accurate risk judgment. For example, use a stacked bar that shows affected and unaffected people out of the full population instead of a bar that shows only the affected count.

reason

Why full part-whole context changes risk judgments

Foreground-only graphics make the affected cases dominate attention. Adding the unaffected remainder restores the full part-to-whole context and reduces inflated reactions to the risk.

Mechanism: When viewers see both the affected cases and the full population, they judge the size of the risk against its denominator instead of reacting mainly to the numerator.

Evidence: The paper reports that graphs emphasizing only the foreground, such as the number affected, increase perceived risk and risk-avoidant behavior, while displays that show both foreground and background decrease risk-avoidant behavior; it also recommends proportional part-to-whole graphics when accurate magnitude judgment is the goal (Lipkus, 2007).

context

Use when the goal is accurate risk magnitude, not persuasion

  • User Goal: Understand how large a risk is without exaggeration.
  • Task: Judge an affected count in relation to the full population at risk.
  • Data: A numerator and a denominator that form a part-whole relationship.
  • Chart Setting: A risk graphic where affected cases could be shown alone or against the full population.
  • Audience: Readers making judgments or decisions from the display.
  • Success Criterion: The denominator is visible and the risk is not inflated by foreground-only emphasis.

exceptions

Do not use when heightened concern is the main goal

Break it when: The communication goal is to heighten concern or encourage risk-avoidant behavior. Why: The source reports that foreground-only displays are more persuasive and increase risk-avoidant responses.

costs

Tradeoffs of adding the denominator visually

Sacrifice: You give up some persuasive force.
Risk: The display can reduce the felt urgency of the risk.
Mitigation: If urgency is the goal, use foreground emphasis deliberately rather than by accident.

mistakes

Common failure mode in risk graphics

Mistake: Showing only the affected cases when the goal is accurate risk magnitude. Why it fails: Foreground-only emphasis increases the perceived size of the risk.

check

How to test whether denominator context is missing

Failure Sign: The graphic shows harmed or benefited cases but no visible total population.
Quick Check: Ask whether a reviewer can answer both “how many are affected” and “out of how many total” from the graphic alone.
Stronger Test: Compare reactions to a foreground-only version and a version that shows both affected and unaffected counts.

fix

What to change

  • Add the unaffected remainder or total population to the graphic.
  • Convert an affected-only bar into a stacked bar or equivalent part-whole display.
  • Keep the displayed parts visually proportional to the underlying counts.

References

Lipkus, I. M. (2007). Numeric, Verbal, and Visual Formats of Conveying Health Risks: Suggested Best Practices and Future Recommendations. Medical Decision Making, 27(5), 696–713. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X07307271