Numeracy and the perception and communication of risk

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Volumn 1128, Issue , 2008, Pages 1-7

  Peters, Ellen ^a  

^a DECISION RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

Dual process model; Numeracy; Risk communication; Risk perception

Indexed keywords

COMPREHENSION; CONFERENCE PAPER; DECISION MAKING; EMOTION; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MOOD; PERCEPTION; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; THEORETICAL STUDY; THINKING; TRUST;

EID: 43249117100     PISSN: 00778923     EISSN: 17496632     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1196/annals.1399.001     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (41)

1. 1 Slovic, P. 1999. Comment: are trivial risks the greatest risks of all? J. Risk Res. 2: 281–288.
2. 2 Sloman, S.A. 1996. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychol. Bull. 119: 3–22.
3. 3 Epstein, S. 1994. Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. Am. Psychol. 49: 709–724.
4. 4 Simon, H.A. 1955. A behavioral model of rational choice. Quart. J. Econ. 59: 99–118.
5. 5 Salthouse, T.A. 1996. The processing‐speed theory of adult age differences in cognition. Psychol. Rev. 103: 403–428.
6. 6 Payne, J.W., J.R. Bettman & E.J. Johnson. 1993. The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge University Press. New York.
7. 7 Lichtenstein, S. & P. Slovic. 2006. The Construction of Preference. Cambridge University Press. New York.
8. 8 Gigerenzer, G. & R. Selten. 2001. Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox. The MIT Press. Cambridge, MA.
9. 9 Peters, E. 2006. The functions of affect in the construction of preferences. In The Construction of Preference. S. Lichtenstein & P. Slovic, Eds.: 454–463. Cambridge University Press. New York.
10. 10 Damasio, A.R. 1994. Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. Avon. New York.
11. 11 Osgood, C.E., G.J. Suci & P.H. Tannenbaum. 1957. The Measurement of Meaning. University of Illinois. Urbana.
12. 12 Peters, E. et al. 2006. Why worry? Worry, risk perceptions, and willingness to act to reduce medical errors. Health Psychol. 25: 144–152.
13. 13 Slovic, P. et al. 2005. Affect, risk, and decision making. Health Psychol. 24: S35–S40.
14. 14 Loewenstein, G. et al. 2001. Risk as feelings. Psychol. Bull. 127: 267–286.
15. 15 Peters, E. & P. Slovic. 1996. The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 26: 1427–1453.
16. 16 Slovic, P. & E. Peters. 2006. Risk perception and affect. Curr. Directions Psychol. Sci. 15: 322–325.
17. 17 Merriman, P.A. 2002. May 7. Lessons learned at Harvard: Easy solutions to baffling problems. FundAdvice.com. http://www.fundadvice.com/FEhtml/PsychHurdles/0206b.html.
18. 18 Peters, E. 2006. Numbers are just numbers. In Social Structures, Aging and Self‐Regulation in the Elderly. K.W. Schaie & L.L. Carstensen, Eds.: 175–188. Springer. New York.
19. 19 Hibbard, J.H. et al. 2001. Making health care quality report cards easier to use. Joint Commission J. Quality Improvement 27: 591–604.
20. 20 Bateman, I.A. et al. 2007. The affect heuristic and the attractiveness of simple gambles. J. Behav. Decision Making 20: 365–380.
21. 21 Lipkus, I.M., G. Samsa & B.K. Rimer. 2001. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med. Decision Making. 21: 37–44.
22. 22 Schwartz, L.M., S. Woloshin & H.G. Welch. 1997. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann. Intern. Med. 127: 966–972.
23. 23 Peters, E. et al. 2006. Numeracy and decision making. Psychol. Sci. 17: 407–413.
24. 24 Dehaene, S. 1997. The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates Mathematics. Oxford University Press. New York.
25. 25 Slovic, P., J. Monahan & D.G. MacGregor. 2000. Violence risk assessment and risk communication: the effects of using actual cases, providing instructions, and employing probability vs. frequency formats. Law Human Behav. 24: 271–296.
26. 26 Yamagishi, K. 1997. When a 12.86% mortality is more dangerous than 24.14%: implications for risk communication. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 11: 495–506.
27. 27 Thaler, R.H. & C.R. Sunstein. 2003. Libertarian paternalism. Am. Econ. Rev. 93: 175–179.
28. 28 Madrian, B.C. & D.F. Shea. 2001. The power of suggestion: inertia in 401(k) participation and savings behavior. Quart. J. Econ. 116: 1149–1187.
29. 29 Munnell, A.H. & A. Sundén. 2004. The Challenge of 401(k) Plans. Brookings Institution Press. Washington, DC.
30. 30 Peters, E. et al. 2007. Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers. Med. Care Res. Rev. 64: 169–190.
31. 31 Chua, H.F., J.F. Yates & P. Shah. 2006. Risk avoidance: graphs versus numbers. Memory Cogn. 34: 399–410.
32. 32 Gigerenzer, G. & A. Edwards. 2003. Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. Br. Med. J. 327: 741–744.
33. 33 Hoffrage, U. et al. 2000. Communicating statistical information. Science 290: 2261–2262.
34. 34 Waters, E.A. et al. 2006. Formats for improving risk communication in medical tradeoff decisions. J. Health Commun. 11: 167–182.
35. 35 Edwards, A. et al. 2003. Effects of communicating individual risks in screening programmes: Cochrane systematic review. Br. Med. J. 327: 703–709.
36. 36 Keeney, R.L. 1993. Value‐Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision Making. Harvard University Press. Cambridge.
37. 37 Hammond, K.R. 1996. Human Judgment and Social Policy: Irreducible Uncertainty, Inevitable Error, Unavoidable Injustice. Oxford University Press. New York.
38. 38 Kirsch, I.S. et al. Adult literacy in America: a first look at the findings of the National Adult Literacy Survey (3rd ed., NCES 1993–275). U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC.
39. 39 Kurz‐Milcke, E., G. Gigerenzer & L. Martignon. 2008. Transparency in risk communication: graphical and analog tools. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1128: 18–28. This volume.
40. 40 Wang, X.‐T. 2008. Risk communication and risky choice in context: ambiguity and ambivalence hypothesis. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1128: 78–89. This volume.
41. 41 Finkel, A.M. 2008. Perceiving others' perceptions of risk: still a task for sisyphus. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1128: 121–137. This volume.