Individual Differences in Graph Literacy: Overcoming Denominator Neglect in Risk Comprehension

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making

Volumn 25, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 390-401

  Okan, Yasmina ^a   Garcia Retamero, Rocio ^a,b   Cokely, Edward T ^b,c   Maldonado, Antonio ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (Germany)

^c MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Denominator neglect; Graph literacy; Individual differences; Risk communication; Risk perception; Visual aids

Indexed keywords

EID: 84860333660     PISSN: 08943257     EISSN: 10990771     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bdm.751     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. Ancker, J. S., Senathirajah, Y., Kukafka, R., & Starren, J. B. (2006). Design features of graphs in health risk communication: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 13, 608-618.
2. Arunachalam, V., Pei, B. K., & Steinbart, P. J. (2002). Impression management with graphs: Effects on choices. Journal of Information System, 16, 183-202.
3. Banks, S. M., Salovey, P., Greener, S., Rothman, A. J., Moyer, A., Beauvais, J., & Epel, E. (1995). The effects of message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychology, 14, 178-184.
4. Baron, J. (2000). Thinking and deciding (3rd ed.).Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
5. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323-370.
6. Beattie, V., & Jones, M. J. (2002). Measurement distortion of graphs in corporate reports: An experimental study. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15, 546-564.
7. Bonato, M., Fabbri, S., Umiltà, C., & Zorzi, M. (2007). The mental representation of numerical fractions: Real or integer? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 33, 1410-1419.
8. Bonner, C., & Newell, B. R. (2008). How to make a risk seem riskier: The ratio bias versus construal level theory. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 411-416.
9. Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (1990). Inclusion illusions: Fuzzy-trace theory and perceptual salience effects in cognitive development. Developmental Review, 10, 365-403.
10. Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2007). Individual differences in adult decision making competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 938-956.
11. Campitelli, G., & Labollita, M. (2010). Correlations of cognitive reflection with judgments and choices. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 182-192.
12. Carpenter, P. A., & Shah, P. (1998). A model of the perceptual and conceptual processes in graph comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 4, 75-100.
13. Cleary, P. D., & Angel, R. (1984). The analysis of relationships involving dichotomous dependent-variables. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 25, 334-348.
14. Cleveland, W. S. (1994). The elements of graphing data. Summit, NJ: Hobart Press.
15. Cleveland, W. S., & McGill, R. (1984). Graphical perception: Theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphical methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, 531-554.
16. Cokely, E. T., Galesic, M., Schulz, E., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2011). The Berlin advanced numeracy test for highly educated samples (ANT-E): A valid three minute test of statistical and risk literacy. Manuscript submitted for publication.
17. Cokely, E. T., Ghazal, S., Garcia-Retamero, R., Galesic, M., & Schulz, E. (in press). Cross-Cultural comparisons of statistical numeracy in college educated samples. In R. Garcia-Retamero, & M. Galesic (Eds.), Risk communication and medical decision making: A cross-cultural perspective. New York: Springer.
18. Cokely, E. T., & Kelley, C. M. (2009). Cognitive abilities and superior decision making under risk: A protocol analysis and process model evaluation. Judgment and Decision Making, 4, 20-33.
19. Cokely, E. T., Kelley, C. M., & Gilchrist, A. H. (2006). Sources of individual differences in working memory: Contributions of strategy to capacity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 991-997.
20. Cooper, R. J., Schriger, D. L., Wallace, R. C., Mikulich, V. J., & Wilkes, M. S. (2003). The quantity and quality of scientific graphs in pharmaceutical advertisements. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 18, 294-297.
21. Del Missier, F., Mäntylä, T., & de Bruine, W. B. (2010). Executive functions in decision making: An individual differences approach. Thinking and Reasoning, 16, 69-97.
22. Del Missier, F., Mäntylä, T., & de Bruin, W. B. (in press). Decision making competence, executive functioning, and general cognitive abilities. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. doi:10.1002/bdm.731 (this issue).
23. Denes-Raj, V., Epstein, S., & Cole, J. (1995). The generality of the ratio-bias phenomenon. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1083-1092.
24. Edwards, A., Elwyn, G., Covey, J., Matthews, E., & Pill, R. (2001). Presenting risk information a review of the effects of framing and other manipulations on patient outcomes. Journal of Health Communication, 6, 61-82.
25. Edwards, A., Elwyn, G., & Mulley, A. (2002). Explaining risks: Turning numerical data into meaningful pictures. British Medical Journal, 324, 827-830.
26. Ericsson, K. A., Prietula, M. J., & Cokely, E. T. (2007). The making of an expert. Harvard Business Review, 85, 114-121.
27. Fagerlin, A., Wang, C., & Ubel, P. (2005). Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people's health care decisions: Is a picture worth a thousand statistics? Medical Decision Making, 25, 398-405.
28. Finucane, M. L., Mertz, C. K., Slovic, P., Schmidt, E. S. (2005). Task complexity and older adults' decision making competence. Psychology and Aging, 20, 71-84.
29. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 24-42
30. Friel, S. N., Curcio, F. R., & Bright, G. W. (2001). Making sense of graphs: Critical factors influencing comprehension and instructional implications. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 124-158.
31. Fuller, R., Dudley, N., & Blacktop, J. (2002). How informed is consent? Understanding of pictorial and verbal probability information by medical inpatients. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 78, 543-544.
32. Galesic, M., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2010). Statistical numeracy for health: A cross-cultural comparison with probabilistic national samples. Archives of Internal Medicine, 170, 462-468.
33. Galesic, M., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2011). Graph literacy: A cross-cultural comparison. Medical Decision Making, 31, 444-457.
34. Galesic, M., Garcia-Retamero, R., & Gigerenzer, G. (2009). Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: Overcoming low numeracy. Health Psychology, 28, 210-216.
35. Garcia-Retamero, R., & Cokely, E. T. (in press). Effective communication of risks to young adults: Using message framing and visual aids to increase condom use and STD screening. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. doi:10.1037/a0023677
36. Garcia-Retamero, R., & Dhami, M. K. (2009). Take-the-best in expert-novice decision strategies for residential burglary. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16, 163-169.
37. Garcia-Retamero, R., & Dhami, M. K. (2011). Pictures speak louder than numbers: On communicating medical risks to immigrants with limited non-native language proficiency. Health Expectations, 14, 46-57.
38. Garcia-Retamero, R., & Galesic, M. (2009). Communicating treatment risk reduction to people with low numeracy skills: A cross-cultural comparison. American Journal of Public Health, 99, 2196-2202.
39. Garcia-Retamero, R., & Galesic, M. (2010a).How to reduce the effect of framing on messages about health. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 25, 1323-1329.
40. Garcia-Retamero, R., & Galesic, M. (2010b). Who profits from visual aids: Overcoming challenges in people's understanding of risks. Social Science & Medicine, 70, 1019-1025.
41. Garcia-Retamero, R., & Galesic, M. (2011). Using plausible group sizes to communicate information about medical risks. Patient Education and Counseling, 84, 245-250.
42. Garcia-Retamero, R., Galesic, M., & Gigerenzer, G. (2010). Do icon arrays help reduce denominator neglect? Medical Decision Making, 30, 672-684.
43. Garcia-Retamero, R., Galesic, M., Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Enhancing understanding and recall of quantitative information about medical risks: A cross-cultural comparison between Germany and Spain. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14, 218-226.
44. Gattis, M. (2002). Structure mapping in spatial reasoning. Cognitive Development, 17, 1157-1183.
45. Gattis, M. (2004). Mapping relational structure in spatial reasoning. Cognitive Science, 28, 589-610.
46. Gattis, M., & Holyoak, K. J. (1996). Mapping conceptual to spatial relations in visual reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 231-239.
47. Gerend, M. A., & Shepherd, J. E. (2007). Using message framing to promote acceptance of the human papillomavirus vaccine. Health Psychology, 26, 745-752.
48. Gigerenzer, G., Gaissmaier, W., Kurz-Milcke, E., Schwartz, L. M., & Woloshin, S. (2007). Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8, 53-96.
49. Grossarth-Maticek R., & Ziegler R. (2008). Randomized and non-randomized prospective controlled cohort studies in matched pair design for the long-term therapy of corpus uteri cancer patients with a mistletoe preparation. European Journal of Medical Research, 13, 107-120.
50. Hansen, C., & Hansen, R. (1988). Finding the face in the crowd: An anger superiority effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 917-924.
51. Haward, M. F., Murphy, R. O., & Lorenz, J. M. (2008). Message framing and perinatal decisions. Pediatrics, 122, 109-118.
52. Kosslyn, S. M. (2006). Graph design for the eye and mind. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
53. Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 149-188.
54. Lichtenberg P., Levinson D., Sharshevsky Y., Feldman D., & Lachman, M. (2008). Clinical case management of revolving door patients: A semi-randomized study. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 117, 449-454.
55. Lipkus, I. M. (2007). Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: Suggested best practices and future recommendations. Medical Decision Making, 27, 696-713.
56. Lipkus, I. M., & Hollands, J. G. (1999). The visual communication of risk. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs, 25, 149-163.
57. Lloyd, F. J., & Reyna, V. F. (2001). A Web exercise in evidence-based medicine using cognitive theory. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16, 94-99.
58. Lohse, G. L. (1993). A cognitive model for understanding graphical perception. Human Computer Interaction, 8, 353-388.
59. Lunney, G. H. (1970). Using analysis of variance with a dichotomous dependent variable-An empirical study. Journal of Educational Measurement, 7, 263-269.
60. Maichle, U. (1994). Cognitive processes in understanding line graphs. In W. Schnotz & R. W. Kulhavy (Eds.), Comprehension of graphics (pp. 207-227). Amsterdam: North-Holland Elsevier Science
61. Marteau, T. M. (1989). Framing of information: Its influence upon decisions of doctors and patients. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 89-94.
62. Mazur, D. J., & Hickam, D. H. (1993). Patients' and physicians' interpretations of graphic data displays. Medical Decision Making, 13, 59-63.
63. McNeil, B. J., Pauker, S. G., Sox, H. C., & Tversky, A. (1982). On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. The New England Journal of Medicine, 306, 1259-1262.
64. Ni, Y., & Zhou, Y. D. (2005). Teaching and learning fraction and rational numbers: The origins and implications of whole number bias. Educational Psychologist, 40, 27-52.
65. Öhman, A., Lundqvist, D., & Esteves, F. (2001). The face in the crowd revisited: A threat advantage with schematic stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 381-396.
66. Okan, Y., Galesic, M., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2010). Graph comprehension in medical contexts: An eye-tracking study. Poster presented at the 13th Biennial European Conference of the Society for Medical Decision Making, Hall in Tyrol.
67. Paling, J. (2003). Strategies to help patients understand risks. British Medical Journal, 327, 745-748.
68. Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2005). Decision making competence: External validation through an individual-differences approach. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18, 1-27.
69. Peters, E. & Levin, I. P. (2008). Dissecting the risky-choice framing effect: Numeracy as an individual-difference factor in weighting risky and riskless options. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 435-448.
70. Peters, E., Västfjäll, D., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Mazzocco, K., & Dickert, S. (2006). Numeracy and decision making. Psychological Science, 17, 407-413.
71. Pinker, S. (1990). A theory of graph comprehension. In R. Freedle (Ed.), Artificial intelligence and the future of testing (pp. 73-126). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
72. Pratto, F., & John, O. P. (1991). Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of negative social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 380-391.
73. Reyna, V. F. (1991). Class inclusion, the conjunction fallacy, and other cognitive illusions. Developmental Review, 11, 317-336.
74. Reyna, V. F. (2004). How people make decisions that involve risk. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 60-66.
75. Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (1995). Fuzzy-trace theory: An interim synthesis. Learning and Individual Differences, 7, 1-75.
76. Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (2008).Numeracy, ratio bias, and denominator neglect in judgments of risk and probability. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 89-107.
77. Reyna, V. F., Nelson, W. L., Han P. K., & Dieckmann, N. F. (2009). How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 943-973.
78. Rivers, S. E., Salovey, P., Pizarro, D. A., Pizarro, J., & Schneider, T. R. (2005). Message framing and pap test utilization among women attending a community health clinic. Journal of Health Psychology, 10, 65-77.
79. Roth, W. M., & Bowen, G. M. (2003). When are graphs worth ten thousand words? An expert-expert study. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 429-473.
80. Rothman, A. J., Martino, S. C., Bedell, B. T., Detweiler, J. B., & Salovey, P. (1999). The systematic influence of gain-and loss-framed messages on interest in and use of different types of health behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1355-1369.
81. Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 3-19.
82. Schwartz, L. M., Woloshin, S., Black, W. C., & Welch, H. G. (1997). The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127, 966-972.
83. Shah, P. (2001). Graph comprehension: The role of format, content, and individual differences. In M. Anderson, B. Meyer, & P. Olivier (Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and reasoning. (pp 173-185). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
84. Shah, P., & Freedman, E. G. (2011). Bar and line graph comprehension: An interaction of top-down and bottom-up processes. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 560-578.
85. Shah, P., & Hoeffner, J. (2002). Review of graph comprehension research: Implications for instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 47-69.
86. Shanteau, J. (1992). How much information does an expert use? Is it relevant? Acta Psychologica, 81, 75-86.
87. Shiloh, S., Salton, E., & Sharabi, D. (2002). Individual differences in rational and intuitive thinking styles as predictors of heuristic responses and framing effects. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 415-429.
88. Smith, N. K., Cacioppo, J. T., Larsen, J. T., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). May I have your attention, please: Electrocortical responses to positive and negative stimuli. Neuropsycologia, 41, 171-183.
89. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 645-726.
90. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2008). On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 672-695.
91. Stone, E. R., Sieck, W. R., Bull, B. E., Yates, J. F., Parks, S. C., & Rush, C. J. (2003). Foreground: Background salience: Explaining the effects of graphical displays on risk avoidance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90, 19-36.
92. Toll, B. A., Martino, S., Latimer, A., Salovey, P., O'Malley, S., Calin-Menter, S., Hopkins J., Wu, R., Celestino, P., & Cummings, K. M. (2010). Randomized trial: Quitline specialist training in gain-framed vs standard-care messages for smoking cessation. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 102, 96-16.
93. Tufte, E. R. (2001). The visual display of quantitative information (2nd ed.). Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
94. Tversky, B. (2001). Spatial schemas in depictions. In M. Gattis (Ed.), Spatial schemas and abstract thought (pp. 79-112). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
95. Waters, E. A., Weinstein, N. D., Colditz, G. A., & Emmons, K. M. (2007). Reducing aversion to side effects in preventive medical treatment decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 13, 11-21.
96. Wilson, D. K., Kaplan, R. M., & Schneiderman, L. J. (1987). Framing of decisions and selections of alternatives in health care. Social Behaviour, 2, 51-59.
97. Wright, A. J., Whitwell, S. C., Takeichi, C., Hankins, M., & Marteau, T. M. (2009). The impact of numeracy on reactions to different graphic risk presentation formats: An experimental analogue study. British Journal of Health Psychology, 14, 107-125.
98. Yamagishi, K. (1997). When a 12.86% mortality is more dangerous than 24.14%: Implications for risk communication. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 495-506.
99. Zikmund-Fisher, B., Ubel, P., Smith, D., Derry, H., McClure, J., Stark, A., Pitsch, R., & Fagerlin, A. (2008). Communicating side effect risks in a tamoxifen prophylaxis decision aid: The debiasing influence of pictographs. Patient Education and Counseling, 73, 209-214.