Is it true that if citizens understand hurricane probabilities, they will make more rational decisions for evacuation? Finding answers to such questions is not straightforward in the literature because the terms judgment and decision making are often used interchangeably. This terminology conflation leads to a lack of clarity on whether people make suboptimal decisions because of inaccurate judgments of information conveyed in visualizations or because they use alternative yet currently unknown heuristics. To decouple judgment from decision making, we review relevant concepts from the literature and present two preregistered experiments (N=601) to investigate if the task (judgment vs. decision making), the scenario (sports vs. humanitarian), and the visualization (quantile dotplots, density plots, probability bars) affect accuracy. While experiment 1 was inconclusive, we found evidence for a difference in experiment 2. Contrary to our expectations and previous research, which found decisions less accurate than their direct-equivalent judgments, our results pointed in the opposite direction. Our findings further revealed that decisions were less vulnerable to status-quo bias, suggesting decision makers may disfavor responses associated with inaction. We also found that both scenario and visualization types can influence peoples judgments and decisions. Although effect sizes are not large and results should be interpreted carefully, we conclude that judgments cannot be safely used as proxy tasks for decision making, and discuss implications for visualization research and beyond.

翻译：是否只要市民理解飓风概率，就能做出更理性的疏散决策？文献中对此类问题的解答并不直接，因为"判断"与"决策"常被混用。这种术语混淆导致人们难以厘清：糟糕的决策究竟源于对可视化信息传达内容的判断失误，还是源于使用了替代性但未知的启发式策略。为分离判断与决策，我们回顾了文献中的相关概念，并通过两项预注册实验（N=601）探究任务类型（判断vs.决策）、场景（体育vs.人道主义）及可视化形式（分位数点图、密度图、概率条形图）是否影响准确率。实验1未得出明确结论，但实验2发现了差异证据。与我们的预期及以往研究（认为决策的准确率低于其直接对应的判断）相反，结果呈现反向趋势。进一步发现，决策受现状偏差影响较小，表明决策者可能更不倾向选择与"不作为"相关的响应。此外，场景类型与可视化形式均会影响人们的判断与决策。尽管效应量不大且需谨慎解释结果，我们得出结论：判断不宜安全地用作决策的代理任务，并讨论了该结论对可视化研究及其他领域的启示。