Visual aids improve diagnostic inferences and metacognitive judgment calibration

Frontiers in Psychology

Volumn 6, Issue , 2015, Pages

  Garcia Retamero, Rocio ^a,b,c   Cokely, Edward T ^b,c,d   Hoffrage, Ulrich ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

^b MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Bayesian reasoning; diagnostic inferences; medical decision making; natural frequencies; numeracy; risk literacy; visual aids

Indexed keywords

EID: 84954218371     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16641078     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00932     Document Type: Article

References (96)

1. Ancker J. S. Kaufman D. (2007). Rethinking health numeracy: a multidisciplinary literature review. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 14, 713–721. 10.1197/jamia.M246417712082
2. Ancker J. S. Senathirajah Y. Kukafka R. Starren J. B. (2006). Design features of graphs in health risk communication: a systematic review. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 13, 608–618. 10.1197/jamia.M211516929039
3. Ancker J. S. Weber E. U. Kukafka R. (2011). Effect of arrangement of stick figures on estimates of proportion in risk graphics. Med. Decis. Mak. 31, 143–150. 10.1177/0272989X1036900620671209
4. Apter A. J. Paasche-Orlow M. K. Remillard J. T. Bennett I. M. Ben-Joseph E. P. Batista R. M. et al. (2008). Numeracy and communication with patients: they are counting on us. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 23, 2117–2224. 10.1007/s11606-008-0803-x18830764
5. Brase G. L. (2009). Pictorial representations in statistical reasoning. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 23, 369–381. 10.1002/acp.1460
6. Brase G. L. (2014). The power of representation and interpretation: doubling statistical reasoning performance with icons and frequentist interpretations of ambiguous numbers. J. Cogn. Psychol. 26, 81–97. 10.1080/20445911.2013.861840
7. Brase G. L. Cosmides L. Tooby J. (1998). Individuation, counting, and statistical inference: the role of frequency and whole-object representations in judgment under uncertainty. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 127, 3–21. 10.1037/0096-3445.127.1.3
8. Cokely E. T. Galesic M. Schulz E. Ghazal S. Garcia-Retamero R. (2012). Measuring risk literacy: the Berlin Numeracy Test. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 7, 25–47.
9. Cokely E. T. Ghazal S. Garcia-Retamero R. (2014). “Measuring numeracy,” in Numerical Reasoning in Judgments and Decision Making about Health, eds Anderson B. L. Schulkin J. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 11–38.
10. Cokely E. T. Kelley C. M. (2009). Cognitive abilities and superior decision making under risk: a protocol analysis and process model evaluation. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 4, 20–33.
11. Cosmides L. Tooby J. (1996). Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty. Cognition 58, 1–73. 10.1016/0010-0277(95)00664-8
12. Cox D. S. Cox A. D. Sturm L. Zimet G. (2010). Behavioral interventions to increase HPV vaccination acceptability among mothers of young girls. Health Psychol. 29, 29–39. 10.1037/a001694220063933
13. Davids S. L. Schapira M. M. McAuliffe T. L. Nattinger A. B. (2004). Predictors of pessimistic breast cancer risk perceptions in a primary care population. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 19, 310–315. 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.20801.x15061739
14. Dunning D. Heath C. Suls J. M. (2004). Flawed self-assessment implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 5, 69–106. 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00018.x
15. Eddy D. M. (1982). “Probabilistic reasoning in clinical medicine: problems and opportunities,” in Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, ed. Kahneman D. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 249–267. 10.1017/CBO9780511809477.019
16. Ehrlinger J. Dunning D. (2003). How chronic self-views influence (and potentially mislead) estimates of performance. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 84, 5–17. 10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.512518967
17. Ehrlinger J. Johnson K. Banner M. Dunning D. Kruger J. (2008). Why the unskilled are unaware: further explorations of (absent) self-insight among the incompetent. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 105, 98–121. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.05.00219568317
18. Ellis K. M. Cokely E. T. Ghazal S. Garcia-Retamero R. (2014). Do people understand their home HIV test results? risk literacy and information search. Proc. Hum. Fact. Ergon. Soc. Ann. Meet. 58, 1323–1327. 10.1177/1541931214581276
19. Fagerlin A. Ubel P. A. Smith D. M. Zikmund-Fisher B. J. (2007). Making numbers matter: present and future research in risk communication. Am. J. Health Behav. 31, S47–S56. 10.5993/ajhb.31.s1.717931136
20. Fagerlin A. Wang C. Ubel P. A. (2005). Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people’s health care decisions: is a picture worth a thousand statistics? Med. Decis. Mak. 25, 398–405. 10.1177/0272989X0527893116061891
21. Feldman-Stewart D. Brundage M. D. Zotov V. (2007). Further insight into the perception of quantitative information: judgments of gist in treatment decisions. Med. Decis. Mak. 27, 34–43. 10.1177/0272989X0629710117237451
22. Feldman-Stewart D. Kocovski N. McConnell B. A. Brundage M. D. Mackillop W. J. (2000). Perception of quantitative information for treatment decisions. Med. Decis. Mak. 20, 228–238. 10.1177/0272989X000200020810772360
23. Fischhoff B. Brewer N. T. Downs J. S. (2012). Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence Based User’s Guide. Silver Spring, MD: US Department of Health and Human Service, Food and Drug Administration.
24. Gaissmaier W. Wegwarth O. Skopec D. Müller A. Broschinski S. Politi M. C. (2012). Numbers can be worth a thousand pictures: individual differences in understanding graphical and numerical representations of health-related information. Health Psychol. 31, 286–296. 10.1037/a002485021842998
25. Galesic M. Garcia-Retamero R. (2010). Statistical numeracy for health: a cross-cultural comparison with probabilistic national samples. Arch. Intern. Med. 170, 462–468. 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.48120212183
26. Galesic M. Garcia-Retamero R. (2011a). Communicating consequences of risky behaviors: life expectancy versus risk of disease. Patient Educ. Couns. 82, 30–35. 10.1016/j.pec.2010.02.00820219316
27. Galesic M. Garcia-Retamero R. (2011b). Do low-numeracy people avoid shared decision making? Health Psychol. 30, 336–341. 10.1037/a002272321553977
28. Garcia-Retamero R. Andrade A. Sharit J. Ruiz J. G. (2015). Is patient’s numeracy related to physical and mental health? Med. Decis. Mak. 35, 501–511. 10.1177/0272989X1557812625943579
29. Garcia-Retamero R. Cokely E. T. (2011). Effective communication of risks to young adults: using message framing and visual aids to increase condom use and STD screening. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 17, 270–287. 10.1037/a002367721942316
30. Garcia-Retamero R. Cokely E. T. (2013). Communicating health risks with visual aids. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 22, 392–399. 10.1177/0963721413491570
31. Garcia-Retamero R. Cokely E. T. (2014a). The influence of skills, message frame, and visual aids on prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 27, 179–189. 10.1002/bdm.1797
32. Garcia-Retamero R. Cokely E. T. (2014b). “Using visual aids to help people with low numeracy make better decisions,” in Numerical Reasoning in Judgments and Decision Making about Health, eds Anderson B. L. Schulkin J. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 153–174.
33. Garcia-Retamero R. Cokely E. T. (2015). Simple but powerful health messages for increasing condom use in young adults. J. Sex Res. 52, 30–42. 10.1080/00224499.2013.80664724007406
34. Garcia-Retamero R. Galesic M. (2009). Communicating treatment risk reduction to people with low numeracy skills: a cross-cultural comparison. Am. J. Public Health 99, 2196–2202. 10.2105/AJPH.2009.16023419833983
35. Garcia-Retamero R. Galesic M. (2010a). How to reduce the effect of framing on messages about health. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 25, 1323–1329. 10.1007/s11606-010-1484-920737295
36. Garcia-Retamero R. Galesic M. (2010b). Who profits from visual aids: overcoming challenges in people’s understanding of risks. Soc. Sci. Med. 70, 1019–1025. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.11.03120116159
37. Garcia-Retamero R. Galesic M. (2011). Using plausible group sizes to communicate information about medical risks. Patient Educ. Couns. 84, 245–250. 10.1016/j.pec.2010.07.02720728298
38. Garcia-Retamero R. Galesic M. (2013). Transparent Communication of Health Risks: Overcoming Cultural Differences. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978-1-4614-4358-2
39. Garcia-Retamero R. Galesic M. Gigerenzer G. (2010). Do icon arrays help reduce denominator neglect? Med. Decis. Mak. 30, 672–684. 10.1177/0272989X1036900020484088
40. Garcia-Retamero R. Hoffrage U. (2013). Visual representation of statistical information improves diagnostic inferences in doctors and their patients. Soc. Sci. Med. 83, 27–33. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.01.03423465201
41. Garcia-Retamero R. Wicki B. Cokely E. T. Hanson B. (2014). Factors predicting surgeons’ preferred and actual roles in interactions with their patients. Health Psychol. 33, 920–928. 10.1037/hea000006124512324
42. Gardner P. H. McMillan B. Raynor D. K. Woolf E. Knapp P. (2011). The effect of numeracy on the comprehension of information about medicines in users of a patient information website. Patient Educ. Couns. 83, 398–403. 10.1016/j.pec.2011.05.00621621949
43. Ghazal S. Cokely E. T. Garcia-Retamero R. (2014). Predicting biases in very highly educated samples: numeracy and metacognition. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 9, 15–34.
44. Gigerenzer G. (2013). How I got started teaching physicians and judges risk literacy. Appl. Cogn. Psych. 28, 612–614. 10.1002/acp.2980
45. Gigerenzer G. Fiedler K. Olsson H. (2012). “Rethinking cognitive biases and environmental consequences,” in Ecological Rationality: Intelligence in the World, eds Todd P. M. Gigerenzer G. the ABC Research Group (New York: Oxford University Press), 80–110.
46. Gigerenzer G. Hoffrage U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: frequency formats. Psychol. Rev. 102, 684–704. 10.1037/0033-295X.102.4.684
47. Gigerenzer G. Hoffrage U. (1999). Overcoming difficulties in Bayesian reasoning: a reply to Lewis and Keren (1999) and Mellers and McGraw (1999). Psychol. Rev. 106, 425–430. 10.1037/0033-295X.106.2.425
48. Gillan D. J. Wickens C. D. Hollands J. G. Carswell C. M. (1998). Guidelines for presenting quantitative data in HFES publications. Hum. Fact. 40, 28–41.
49. Goodyear-Smith F. Arroll B. Chan L. Jackson R. Wells S. Kenealy T. (2008). Patients prefer pictures to numbers to express cardiovascular benefit from treatment. Ann. Fam. Med. 6, 213–217. 10.1370/afm.79518474883
50. Griffin D. Brenner L. (2004). “Perspectives on probability judgment calibration,” in Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making, eds Koehler D. J. Harvey N. (Oxford: Blackwell), 177–199. 10.1002/9780470752937.ch9
51. Gurmankin A. D. Baron J. Armstrong K. (2004). Intended message versus message received in hypothetical physician risk communications: exploring the gap. Risk Anal. 24, 1337–1347. 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00530.x15563299
52. Hanoch Y. Miron-Shatz T. Cole H. Himmelstein M. Federman A. D. (2010). Choice, numeracy, and physicians-in-training performance: the case of medicare part D. Health Psychol. 29, 454–459. 10.1037/a001988120658834
53. Hibbard J. H. Peters E. Dixon A. Tusler M. (2007). Consumer competencies and the use of comparative quality information: it isn’t just about literacy. Med. Care Res. Rev. 64, 379–394. 10.1177/107755870730163017684108
54. Hoffrage U. Gigerenzer G. (1998). Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences. Acad. Med. 73, 538–540. 10.1097/00001888-199805000-000249609869
55. Hoffrage U. Gigerenzer G. Krauss S. Martignon L. (2002). Representation facilitates reasoning: what natural frequencies are and what they are not. Cognition 84, 343–352. 10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00050-112044739
56. Hoffrage U. Lindsey S. Hertwig R. Gigerenzer G. (2000). Communicating statistical information. Science 290, 2261–2262. 10.1126/science.290.5500.226111188724
57. Johnson E. D. Tubau E. (2015). Comprehension and computation in Bayesian problem solving. Front. Psychol. 6:938.
58. Kaplan R. M. Frosch D. L. (2005). Decision making in medicine and health care. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 1, 525–556. 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.14411817716098
59. Kurzenhäuser S. Hoffrage U. (2002). Teaching Bayesian reasoning: an evaluation of a classroom tutorial for medical students. Med. Teach. 24, 516–521. 10.1080/014215902100001254012450472
60. Lipkus I. M. (2007). Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med. Decis. Mak. 27, 696–713. 10.1177/0272989X0730727117873259
61. Lipkus I. M. Hollands J. G. (1999). The visual communication of risk. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 25, 149–163. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jncimonographs.a02419110854471
62. Lipkus I. M. Samsa G. Rimer B. K. (2001). General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med. Decis. Mak. 21, 37–44. 10.1177/0272989X010210010511206945
63. Mandel D. R. (2014). Visual representation of rational belief revision: another look at the sleeping beauty problem. Front. Psychol. 5:1232. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.0123225400609
64. Mandel D. R. (2015). Instruction in information structuring improves Bayesian judgment in intelligence analysts. Front. Psychol. 6:387. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.0038725904882
65. Metcalfe J. Finn B. (2008). Evidence that judgments of learning are causally related to study choice. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 15, 174–179. 10.3758/PBR.15.1.17418605499
66. Nelson T. O. (1990). Metamemory: a theoretical framework and new findings. Psychol. Learn. Motiv. 26, 125–173. 10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60053-5
67. Okan Y. Garcia-Retamero R. Cokely E. T. Maldonado A. (2012). Individual differences in graph literacy: overcoming denominator neglect in risk comprehension. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 25, 390–401. 10.1002/bdm.751
68. Okan Y. Garcia-Retamero R. Cokely E. T. Maldonado A. (2015). Improving risk understanding across ability levels: encouraging active processing with dynamic icon arrays. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 21, 178–194. 10.1037/xap000004525938975
69. Paling J. (2003). Strategies to help patients understand risks. BMJ 327, 745–748. 10.1136/bmj.327.7417.74514512489
70. Peters E. (2012). Beyond comprehension the role of numeracy in judgments and decisions. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 21, 31–35. 10.1177/0963721411429960
71. Peters E. Dieckmann N. Dixon A. Hibbard J. H. Mertz C. K. (2007). Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers. Med. Care Res. Rev. 64, 169–190. 10.1177/1077558707064002030117406019
72. Peters E. Levin I. P. (2008). Dissecting the risky-choice framing effect: numeracy as an individual-difference factor in weighting risky and riskless options. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 3, 435–448.
73. Peters E. Vastfjall D. Slovic P. Mertz C. K. Mazzocco K. Dickert S. (2006). Numeracy and decision making. Psychol. Sci. 17, 407–413. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01720.x16683928
74. Petrova D. G. Pligt J. Garcia-Retamero R. (2014). Feeling the numbers: on the interplay between risk, affect, and numeracy. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 27, 191–199. 10.1002/bdm.1803
75. Portnoy D. B. Roter D. Erby L. H. (2010). The role of numeracy on client knowledge in BRCA genetic counseling. Patient Educ. Couns. 81, 131–136. 10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.03619854023
76. Reyna V. F. (2004). How people make decisions that involve risk: a dual-processes approach. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 13, 60–66. 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00275.x
77. Reyna V. F. Brainerd C. J. (2008). Numeracy, ratio bias, and denominator neglect in judgments of risk and probability. Learn. Individ. Differ. 18, 89–107. 10.1016/j.lindif.2007.03.011
78. Reyna V. F. Nelson W. L. Han P. K. Dieckmann N. F. (2009). How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychol. Bull. 135, 943–973. 10.1037/a001732719883143
79. Rothman R. L. Housam R. Weiss H. Davis D. Gregory R. Gebretsadik T. et al. (2006). Patient understanding of food labels: the role of literacy and numeracy. Am. J. Prev. Med. 31, 391–398. 10.1016/j.amepre.2006.07.02517046410
80. Schirillo J. A. Stone E. R. (2005). The greater ability of graphical versus numerical displays to increase risk avoidance involves a common mechanism. Risk Anal. 25, 555–566. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00624.x16022690
81. Schraw G. (2010). Measuring self-regulation in computer-based learning environments. Educ. Psychol. 45, 258–266. 10.1080/00461520.2010.515936
82. Schwartz L. M. Woloshin S. Black W. C. Welch H. G. (1997). The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann. Intern. Med. 127, 966–972. 10.7326/0003-4819-127-11-199712010-000039412301
83. Sedlmeier P. Gigerenzer G. (2001). Teaching Bayesian reasoning in less than two hours. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 130, 380–400. 10.1037/0096-3445.130.3.38011561916
84. Spiegelhalter D. Pearson M. Short I. (2011). Visualizing uncertainty about the future. Science 333, 1393–1400. 10.1126/science.119118121903802
85. Stankov L. (2000). Structural extensions of a hierarchical view on human cognitive abilities. Learn. Individ. Differ. 12, 35–51. 10.1016/S1041-6080(00)00037-6
86. Stankov L. Lee J. (2008). Confidence and cognitive test performance. J. Educ. Psychol. 100, 961–976. 10.1037/a0012546
87. Stone E. R. Sieck W. R. Bull B. E. Yates F. J. Parks S. C. Rush C. J. (2003). Foreground: background salience: explaining the effects of graphical displays on risk avoidance. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 90, 19–36. 10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00003-7
88. Thompson V. A. Prowse Turner J. A. Pennycook G. (2011). Intuition, reason, and metacognition. Cogn. Psychol. 63, 107–140. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.06.00121798215
89. Trevena L. Zikmund-Fisher B. Edwards A. Gaissmaier W. Galesic M. Han P. et al. (2012). “Presenting probabilities,” in Update of the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration’s Background Document, eds Volk R. Llewellyn-Thomas H.. Available at: http://ipdas.ohri.ca/IPDAS-Chapter-C.pdf
90. Waters E. A. Weinstein N. D. Colditz G. A. Emmons K. M. (2007). Reducing aversion to side effects in preventive medical treatment decisions. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 13, 11–21. 10.1037/1076-898X.13.1.1117385998
91. Weinfurt K. P. Castel L. D. Li Y. Sulmasy D. P. Balshem A. M. Benson A. B. et al. (2003). The correlation between patient characteristics and expectations of benefit from phase I clinical trials. Cancer 98, 166–175. 10.1002/cncr.1148312833469
92. Zikmund-Fisher B. J. (2015). Stories of MDM: from a conversation to a career of making less data more useful. Med. Decis. Mak. 35, 1–3. 10.1177/0272989X1456357625532825
93. Zikmund-Fisher B. J. Fagerlin A. Ubel P. A. (2008a). Improving understanding of adjuvant therapy options by using simpler risk graphics. Cancer 113, 3382–3390. 10.1002/cncr.2395919012353
94. Zikmund-Fisher B. J. Ubel P. A. Smith D. M. Derry H. A. McClure J. B. Stark A. et al. (2008b). Communicating side effect risks in a tamoxifen prophylaxis decision aid_ the debiasing influence of pictographs. Patient Educ. Couns. 73, 209–214. 10.1016/j.pec.2008.05.01018602242
95. Zikmund-Fisher B. J. Fagerlin A. Ubel P. A. (2010). A demonstration of “less can be more” in risk graphics. Med. Decis. Mak. 30, 661–671. 10.1177/0272989X1036424420375419
96. Zikmund-Fisher B. J. Witteman H. O. Dickson M. Fuhrel-Forbis A. Kahn V. C. Exe N. L. et al. (2014). Blocks, ovals, or people? icon type affects risk perceptions and recall of pictographs. Med. Decis. Mak. 34, 443–453. 10.1177/0272989X1351170624246564