How Numeracy Influences Risk Comprehension and Medical Decision Making

Department of Human Development, Cornell University, B44 Martha Van Rensselaer Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.
Psychological Bulletin (Impact Factor: 15.58). 11/2009; 135(6):943-73. DOI: 10.1037/a0017327
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We review the growing literature on health numeracy, the ability to understand and use numerical information, and its relation to cognition, health behaviors, and medical outcomes. Despite the surfeit of health information from commercial and noncommercial sources, national and international surveys show that many people lack basic numerical skills that are essential to maintain their health and make informed medical decisions. Low numeracy distorts perceptions of risks and benefits of screening, reduces medication compliance, impedes access to treatments, impairs risk communication (limiting prevention efforts among the most vulnerable), and, based on the scant research conducted on outcomes, appears to adversely affect medical outcomes. Low numeracy is also associated with greater susceptibility to extraneous factors (i.e., factors that do not change the objective numerical information). That is, low numeracy increases susceptibility to effects of mood or how information is presented (e.g., as frequencies vs. percentages) and to biases in judgment and decision making (e.g., framing and ratio bias effects). Much of this research is not grounded in empirically supported theories of numeracy or mathematical cognition, which are crucial for designing evidence-based policies and interventions that are effective in reducing risk and improving medical decision making. To address this gap, we outline four theoretical approaches (psychophysical, computational, standard dual-process, and fuzzy trace theory), review their implications for numeracy, and point to avenues for future research.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We review decision making along the cancer continuum in the contemporary context of informed and shared decision making in which patients are encouraged to take a more active role in their health care. We discuss challenges to achieving informed and shared decision making, including cognitive limitations and emotional factors, but argue that understanding the mechanisms of decision making offers hope for improving decision support. Theoretical approaches to decision making that explain cognition, emotion, and their interaction are described, including classical psychophysical approaches, dual-process approaches that focus on conflicts between emotion versus cognition (or reason), and modern integrative approaches such as fuzzy-trace theory. In contrast to the earlier emphasis on rote use of numerical detail, modern approaches emphasize understanding the bottom-line gist of options (which encompasses emotion and other influences on meaning) and retrieving relevant social and moral values to apply to those gist representations. Finally, research on interventions to support better decision making in clinical settings is reviewed, drawing out implications for future research on decision making and cancer. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).
    American Psychologist 02/2015; 70(2):105-118. DOI:10.1037/a0036834 · 6.87 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Barriers to communicating the uncertainty of environmental health risks include preferences for certain information and low numeracy. Map features designed to communicate the magnitude and uncertainty of estimated cancer risk from air pollution were tested among 826 participants to assess how map features influenced judgments of adequacy and the intended communication goals. An uncertain versus certain visual feature was judged as less adequate but met both communication goals and addressed numeracy barriers. Expressing relative risk using words communicated uncertainty and addressed numeracy barriers but was judged as highly inadequate. Risk communication and visual cognition concepts were applied to explain findings.
    Science Communication 02/2015; 37(1):59-88. DOI:10.1177/1075547014565908 · 2.08 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study examines how numeracy and probability denominator (a direct-ratio probability, a relative frequency with denominator 100, a relative frequency with denominator 10,000) affect the evaluation of prospects in an expected-value based pricing task. We expected that numeracy would affect the results due to differences in the linearity of number perception and the susceptibility to denominator neglect with different probability formats. An analysis with functional measurement verified that participants integrated value and probability into an expected value. However, a significant interaction between numeracy and probability format and subsequent analyses of the parameters of cumulative prospect theory showed that the manipulation of probability denominator changed participants' psychophysical response to probability and value. Standard methods in decision research may thus confound people's genuine risk attitude with their numerical capacities and the probability format used. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
    Cognition 02/2015; 138C:1-9. DOI:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.01.014 · 3.63 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 21, 2014