ArticlePloS one2024
Numerical format and public perception of foreign immigration growth rates.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study aimed to explore whether the 1-in-X bias is also present in relation to immigration growth rates. We tested this research question on a representative sample of adult residents in Trento, Italy, between March and April 2019. Participants were presented with data comparing the foreign immigrant-to-resident population ratio in Italy for 2001 (1 in 40) and 2011 (1 in 15), using two distinct formats-1-in-X and percentages. They were then asked to express the perceived increase. Baseline measures of several individual-level factors, including cultural worldviews, perceptions of immigration, numeracy, science literacy, and economic literacy, were also collected to explore the potential role of individual differences in influencing the effect of the 1-in-X format on the perceived increase in immigrants. The results confirmed the existence of the 1-in-X bias, demonstrating that the immigration growth rate in the 1-in-X format was perceived as higher than in the percentage format, even after controlling for the effects of the idiosyncratic variables. The results of this study provide insight into how different numerical formats can influence public perceptions of immigration growth rates, offering suggestions to policymakers, communicators, and stakeholders about how the presentation of information can shape public opinion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.