Effect of visual aids and individual differences of cognitive traits in judgments on food safety

Food Policy

Volumn 55, Issue , 2015, Pages 33-40

  Honda, Hidehito ^a   Ogawa, Midori ^b   Murakoshi, Takuma ^c   Masuda, Tomohiro ^d,e   Utsumi, Ken ^e   Park, Sora ^f   Kimura, Atsushi ^g   Nei, Daisuke ^e   Wada, Yuji ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TSUKUBA   (Japan)

^c CHIBA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^d BUNKYO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^e NATIONAL FOOD RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Japan)

^f International University of Korea   (South Korea)

^g TOKYO DENKI UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Cognitive reflection test; Individual differences in judgments on food safety; Judgment on safety of food contaminated by pesticide residue; Numeracy; Visual aid

Indexed keywords

COGNITION; FOOD SAFETY; PESTICIDE RESIDUE; SURVEY;

EID: 84931291921     PISSN: 03069192     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.05.010     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Ancker J.S., Kaufman D. Rethinking health numeracy: a multidisciplinary literature review. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2007, 14(6):713-721. 10.1197/jamia.M2464.
2. Ancker J.S., Senathirajah Y., Kukafka R., Starren J.B. Design features of graphs in health risk communication: a systematic review. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2006, 13(6):608-618. 10.1197/jamia.M2115.
3. Armstrong K., FitzGerald G., Schwartz J.S., Ubel P.A. Using survival curve comparisons to inform patient decision making. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2001, 16(7):482-485. 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016007482.x.
4. Cerroni S., Notaro S., Shaw W.D. Eliciting and estimating valid subjective probabilities: an experimental investigation of the exchangeability method. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2012, 84(1):201-215. 10.1016/j.jebo.2012.08.001.
5. Cerroni S., Notaro S., Shaw W.D. How many bad apples are in a bunch? An experimental investigation of perceived pesticide residue risks. Food Policy 2013, 41:112-123. 10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.04.012.
6. Cokely E.T., Kelley C.M. Cognitive abilities and superior decision making under risk: a protocol analysis and process model evaluation. Judgement Decis. Making 2009, 4(1):20-33.
7. Eom Y.S. Pesticide residue risk and food Safety valuation: a random utility approach. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1994, 76(4):760-771. 10.2307/1243737.
8. Fagerlin A., Ubel P.A., Smith D.M., Zikmund-Fisher B.J. Making numbers matter: present and future research in risk communication. Am. J. Health Behav. 2007, 31(1):S47-S56.
9. Fagerlin A., Zikmund-Fisher B.J., Ubel P.A., Jankovic A., Derry H.A., Smith D.M. Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the subjective numeracy scale. Med. Decis. Making 2007, 27(5):672-680. 10.1177/0272989X07304449.
10. Feldman-Stewart D., Kocovski N., McConnell B.A., Brundage M.D., Mackillop W.J. Perception of quantitative information for treatment decisions. Med. Decis. Making 2000, 20(2):228-238. 10.1177/0272989X0002000208.
11. Frederick S. Cognitive reflection and decision making. J. Econ. Perspect. 2005, 19(4):25-42. 10.1257/089533005775196732.
12. Fu T.-T., Liu J.-T., Hammitt J.K. Consumer willingness to pay for low-pesticide fresh produce in Taiwan. J. Agric. Econ. 1999, 50(2):220-233. 10.1111/j.1477-9552.1999.tb00809.x.
13. Garcia-Retamero R., Cokely E.T. Communicating health risks with visual aids. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2013, 22(5):392-399. 10.1177/0963721413491570.
14. Garcia-Retamero R., Okan Y., Cokely E.T. Using visual aids to improve communication of risks about health: a review. Sci. World J. 2012, 10.1100/2012/562637.
15. Gervais W.M., Norenzayan A. Analytic thinking promotes religious disbelief. Science 2012, 336(6080):493-496. 10.1126/science.1215647.
16. Gigerenzer G. Calculated Risks: How to Know When Numbers Deceive You 2003, Simon & Schuster, New York.
17. Kahneman D. Thinking, Fast and Slow 2011, Macmillan Magazines Ltd.
18. Keller C., Siegrist M. Effect of risk communication formats on risk perception depending on numeracy. Med. Decis. Making 2009, 29(4):483-490. 10.1177/0272989X09333122.
19. Koehler D.J., James G. Probability matching and strategy availability. Mem. Cognit. 2010, 38(6):667-676. 10.3758/MC.38.6.667.
20. Liberali J.M., Reyna V.F., Furlan S., Stein L.M., Pardo S.T. Individual differences in numeracy and cognitive reflection, with implications for biases and fallacies in probability judgment. J. Behav. Decis. Making 2012, 25(4):361-381. 10.1002/bdm.752.
21. Lipkus I.M. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med. Decis. Making 2007, 27(5):696-713. 10.1177/0272989X07307271.
22. Lipkus I.M., Hollands J.G. The visual communication of risk. JNCI Monogr. 1999, 1999(25):149-163.
23. Lipkus I.M., Samsa G., Rimer B.K. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med. Decis. Making 2001, 21(1):37-44. 10.1177/0272989X0102100105.
24. Manski C.F. Measuring expectations. Econometrica 2004, 72(5):1329-1376. 10.1111/j.1468-0262.2004.00537.x.
25. Nelson W., Reyna V., Fagerlin A., Lipkus I., Peters E. Clinical implications of numeracy: theory and practice. Ann. Behav. Med. 2008, 35(3):261-274. 10.1007/s12160-008-9037-8.
26. Oechssler J., Roider A., Schmitz P.W. Cognitive abilities and behavioral biases. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2009, 72(1):147-152. 10.1016/j.jebo.2009.04.018.
27. Okamoto M., Kyutoku Y., Sawada M., Clowney L., Watanabe E., Dan I., Kawamoto K. Health numeracy in Japan: measures of basic numeracy account for framing bias in a highly numerate population. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Making 2012, 12(1):104. 10.1186/1472-6947-12-104.
28. Pachur T., Galesic M. Strategy selection in risky choice: the impact of numeracy, affect, and cross-cultural differences. J. Behav. Decis. Making 2013, 26(3):260-271. 10.1002/bdm.1757.
29. Park S., Masuda T., Murakoshi T., Kawasaki Y., Utsumi K., Kimura A., Koyama S., Hibino H., Hino A., Wada Y. The effect of an illustrated visual aid on understanding the amount of pesticide residue in food. Jpn. J. Health Educ. Promot. 2014, 22(2):100-110.
30. Peters E. Numeracy and the perception and communication of risk. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2008, 1128(1):1-7. 10.1196/annals.1399.001.
31. Peters E., Levin I.P. Dissecting the risky-choice framing effect: numeracy as an individual-difference factor in weighting risky and riskless options. Judgement Decis. Making 2008, 3(6):435-448.
32. Peters E., Västfjäll D., Slovic P., Mertz C.K., Mazzocco K., Dickert S. Numeracy and decision making. Psychol. Sci. 2006, 17(5):407-413. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01720.x.
33. Peters E., Dieckmann N., Dixon A., Hibbard J.H., Mertz C.K. Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers. Med. Care Res. Rev. 2007, 64(2):169-190. 10.1177/10775587070640020301.
34. Peters E., Hibbard J., Slovic P., Dieckmann N. Numeracy skill and the communication, comprehension, and use of risk-benefit information. Health Aff. 2007, 26(3):741-748. 10.1377/hlthaff.26.3.741.
35. Reyna V.F., Brainerd C.J. Numeracy, ratio bias, and denominator neglect in judgments of risk and probability. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2008, 18(1):89-107. 10.1016/j.lindif.2007.03.011.
36. Reyna V.F., Nelson W.L., Han P.K., Dieckmann N.F. How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychol. Bull. 2009, 135(6):943-973. 10.1037/a0017327.
37. Rimal A., Fletcher S.M., McWatters K.H., Misra S.K., Deodhar S. Perception of food safety and changes in food consumption habits: a consumer analysis. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2001, 25(1):43-52. 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2001.00162.x.
38. Roosen J., Fox J.A., Hennessy D.A., Schreiber Alan. Consumers' valuation of insecticide use restrictions: an application to apples. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 1998, 23(2):367-384.
39. Schapira M.M., Nattinger A.B., McHorney C.A. Frequency or probability? A qualitative study of risk communication formats used in health care. Med. Decis. Making 2001, 21(6):459-467. 10.1177/0272989X0102100604.
40. Song H., Schwarz N. Fluency and the detection of misleading questions: low processing fluency attenuates the Moses illusion. Soc. Cognit. 2008, 26(6):791-799. 10.1521/soco.2008.26.6.791.
41. Spiegelhalter D., Pearson M., Short I. Visualizing uncertainty about the future. Science 2011, 333(6048):1393-1400. 10.1126/science.1191181.
42. Toplak M., West R., Stanovich K. The cognitive reflection test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks. Mem. Cognit. 2011, 39(7):1275-1289. 10.3758/s13421-011-0104-1.