Numeric and graphic risk information processing of high and low numerates in the intuitive and deliberative decision modes: An eye-tracker study

Judgment and Decision Making

Volumn 9, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 420-432

  Keller, Carmen ^a   Kreuzmair, Christina ^a   Leins Hess, Rebecca ^a   Siegrist, Michael ^a  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Eye tracker; Information processing; Intuitive and deliberative decision making; Numeracy; Risk communication

Indexed keywords

EID: 84907571016     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19302975     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.
2. 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.
3. Ashcraft, M. H., & Moore, A. M. (2009). Mathematics Anxiety and the Affective Drop in Performance. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27(3), 197-205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734282908330580.
4. Bridgeman, B. (1992). Conscious vs. unconscious processes - The case of vision. Theory & Psychology, 2(1), 73-88.
5. Cokely, E. T., Galesic, M., Schulz, E., Ghazal, S., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2012). Measuring Risk Literacy: The Berlin Numeracy Test. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(1), 25-47.
6. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149-1160. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/ Brm.41.4.1149.
7. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/Bf03193146.
8. Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), 1-17.
9. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25-42.
10. Garcia-Retamero, R., & Cokely, E. T. (2013). Communicating Health Risks With Visual Aids. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(5), 392-399. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721413491570.
11. Glöckner, A., & Herbold, A. K. (2011). An eye-tracking study on information processing in risky decisions: Evidence for compensatory strategies based on automatic processes. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24(1), 71-98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.684.
12. Glöckner, A., & Witteman, C. (2010). Beyond dualprocess models: A categorisation of processes underlying intuitive judgement and decision making. Thinking & Reasoning, 16(1), 1-25.
13. Greene, B. A., & Miller, R. B. (1996). Influences on achievement: Goals, perceived ability, and cognitive engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(2), 181-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/Ceps.1996. 0015.
14. Hawley, S. T., Zikmund-Fisher, B., Ubel, P., Jancovic, A., Lucas, T., & Fagerlin, A. (2008). The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices. Patient Education and Counseling, 73(3), 448-455. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.pec.2008.07.023.
15. Hess, R., Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2011). Risk communication with pictographs: The role of numeracy and graph processing. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 263-274.
16. Hess, R., Visschers, V., Siegrist, M., & Keller, C. (2011). How do people perceive graphical risk communication? The role of subjective numeracy. Journal of Risk Research, 14(1), 47-61.
17. Holm, Linus; Eriksson, Johan; Andersson, Linus. (2008). Looking as if you know: Systematic object inspection precedes object recognition. Journal of Vision, 8(4), 1- 4.
18. Horstmann, N., Ahlgrimm, A., & Glöckner, A. (2009). How distinct are intuition and deliberation? An eye-tracking analysis of instruction-induced decision modes. Judgment and Decision Making, 4, 335-354.
19. Horstmann, N., Hausmann, D., & Ryf, S. (2010). Methods for inducing intuitive and deliberative processing modes. In A. Gloeckner & C. Witteman (Eds.), Foundations for Tracing Intuition. New York: Psychology Press.
20. Keller, C. (2011). Using a familiar risk comparison within a risk ladder to improve risk understanding by low numerates: A study of visual attention. Risk Analysis, 31(10), 1572-1589.
21. Keller, C., & Siegrist, M. (2009). Effect of risk communication formats on risk perception depending on numeracy. Medical Decision Making, 29, 483-490.
22. Lipkus, I. (2007). Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: Suggested best practices and future recommendations. Medical Decision Making, 27, 696-713.
23. Lipkus, I., & Peters, E. (2009). Understanding the role of numeracy in health: Proposed theoretical framework and practical insights. Health Ecucation & Behavior, 36(6), 1065-1081.
24. Lipkus, I., Samsa, G., & Rimer, B. K. (2001). General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Medical Decision Making, 21, 37-44.
25. McMullan, M., Jones, R., & Lea, S. (2012). Math anxiety, self-efficacy, and ability in British undergraduatenursing students. Research in Nursing & Health, 35, 178-186.
26. Norman, E., & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M. (2010). Take a quick click at that! Mouselab and eye-tracking as tools to measure intuition. In A. Glöckner & C. Witteman (Eds.), Foundations of Tracing Intuition (pp. 24- 44). Hove: Psychology Press.
27. Peters, E. (2012). Beyond comprehension: The role of numeracy in judgments and decisions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(1), 31-35.
28. Peters, E., Hibbard, J., Slovic, P., & Dieckmann, N. (2007). Numeracy skill and the communication, comprehension, and use of risk-benefit information. Health Affairs, 26, 741-748.
29. Peters, E., Slovic, P., Vastfjall, D., & Mertz, C. K. (2008). Intuitive numbers guide decisions. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(8), 619-635.
30. Peters, E., Västfjäll, D., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Mazzocco, K., & Dickert, S. (2006). Numeracy and decision making. Psychological Science, 17, 407-413.
31. 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(6), 943-973. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0017327.
32. Rubaltelli, E., Dickert, S., & Slovic, P. (2012). Response mode, compatibility, and dual-processes in the evaluation of simple gambles: An eye-tracking investigation. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(4), 427-440.
33. Ryan, J., & Cohen, N. (2004). The nature of change detection and online representations of scenes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 988-1015.
34. Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., Kühberger, A., & Ranyard, R. (2011). The role of process data in the development and testing of process models of judgment and decision making. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(8), 733-739.
35. Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1333-1352. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006.
36. Tait, A. R., Voepel-Lewis, T., Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., & Fagerlin, A. (2010a). The effect of format on parents’ understanding of the risks and benefits of clinical research: A comparison between text, tables, and graphics. Journal of Health Communication, 15(5), 487-501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2010.492560.
37. Tait, A. R., Voepel-Lewis, T., Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., & Fagerlin, A. (2010b). Presenting research risks and benefits to parents: Does format matter? Anesthesia and Analgesia, 111(3), 718-723. http://dx.doi.org/10.1213/ ANE.0b013e3181e8570a.
38. Walker, C. O., Greene, B. A., & Mansell, R. A. (2006). Identification with academics, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive engagement. Learning and Individual Differences, 16(1), 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.Lindif.2005.06.004.
39. Weller, J. A., Dieckmann, N. F., Tusler, M., Mertz, C. K., Burns, W. J., & Peters, E. (2013). Development and testing of an abbreviated numeracy scale: A Rasch analysis approach. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(2), 198-212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1751.
40. Zikmund-Fisher, B., Fagerlin, A., & Ubel, P. (2010). A demonstration of “less can be more” in risk graphics. Medical Decision Making, 30(6), 661-671. http://dx. doi.org/DOI:10.1177/0272989X10364244.