Numeracy and the Perception and Communication of Risk

In the present paper, I focus on a small but important piece of the risk communication/perception puzzle, namely how individuals who differ in number ability comprehend and use numeric information about risks differently. Highly numerate individuals appear to pay more attention to numbers, better comprehend them, translate them into meaningful information, and ultimately use them in decisions. Decisions of the less numerate are informed less by numbers and more by other non‐numeric sources of information, such as their emotions, mood states, and trust or distrust in science, the government, and experts. Careful attention to information presentation, however, allows the less numerate to understand and use numbers more effectively in decisions. As a result, the challenge is not merely to communicate accurate information to the public but to understand how to present that information so that it is used in risky decisions.

[1]  A. Damasio.  Descartes' error: emotion, reason, and the human brain. avon books , 1994 .

[2]  Erika A. Waters,et al.  Formats for Improving Risk Communication in Medical Tradeoff Decisions , 2006, Journal of health communication.

[3]  Kenneth R. Hammond,et al.  Human Judgment and Social Policy: Irreducible Uncertainty, Inevitable Error, Unavoidable Injustice , 2000 .

[4]  A. Finkel,et al.  Perceiving Others’ Perceptions of Risk , 2008, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[5]  P. Slovic,et al.  The Construction of Preference: Index , 2006 .

[6]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article Numeracy and Decision Making , 2022 .

[7]  S. French.  Value‐focused thinking: A path to creative decision making, Keeney, R. L., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992, ISBN 0‐674‐93197‐1 , 1993 .

[8]  Ellen Peters,et al.  Numbers Are Just Numbers , 2006 .

[9]  G. Fricchione.  Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain , 1995 .

[10]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Are trivial risks the greatest risks of all , 1999 .

[11]  Kimihiko Yamagishi.  When a 12.86% Mortality is More Dangerous than 24.14%: Implications for Risk Communication , 1997 .

[12]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Risk as Feelings , 2001, Psychological bulletin.

[13]  P. Slovic,et al.  The Role of Affect and Worldviews as Orienting Dispositions in the Perception and Acceptance of Nuclear Power1 , 1996 .

[14]  R. Selten,et al.  Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox , 2000 .

[15]  S. Epstein.  Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. , 1994, The American psychologist.

[16]  G. Elwyn,et al.  Effects of communicating individual risks in screening programmes: Cochrane systematic review , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[17]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Transparency in Risk Communication , 2008, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[18]  L. Carstensen,et al.  Social structures, aging, and self-regulation in the elderly , 2006 .

[19]  T. Salthouse.  The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition. , 1996, Psychological review.

[20]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  The Affect Heuristic and the Attractiveness of Simple Gambles , 2007 .

[21]  S. Dehaene,et al.  The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates Mathematics. , 1998 .

[22]  P. Slovic,et al.  Violence Risk Assessment and Risk Communication: The Effects of Using Actual Cases, Providing Instruction, and Employing Probability Versus Frequency Formats , 2000, Law and human behavior.

[23]  Lisa M. Schwartz,et al.  The Role of Numeracy in Understanding the Benefit of Screening Mammography , 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[24]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Why worry? Worry, risk perceptions, and willingness to act to reduce medical errors. , 2006, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

[25]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Affect, risk, and decision making. , 2005, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

[26]  S. Sloman.  The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. , 1996 .

[27]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Communicating Statistical Information , 2000, Science.

[28]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Less Is More in Presenting Quality Information to Consumers , 2007, Medical care research and review : MCRR.

[29]  G. Gigerenzer,et al.  Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[30]  Paul Slovic,et al.  The Construction of Preference: References , 2006 .

[31]  Improvement,et al.  Adult literacy in America : a first look at the results of the National Adult Literacy Survey , 1993 .

[32]  J. M. Kittross.  The measurement of meaning , 1959 .

[33]  John W. Payne,et al.  The adaptive decision maker: Name index , 1993 .

[34]  Xiao-Tian Wang.  Risk Communication and Risky Choice in Context , 2008, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[35]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  The adaptive decision maker , 1993 .

[36]  P Slovic,et al.  Making health care quality reports easier to use. , 2001, The Joint Commission journal on quality improvement.

[37]  Ellen Peters,et al.  The Construction of Preference: The Functions of Affect in the Construction of Preferences , 2006 .

[38]  H. Simon,et al.  A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice , 1955 .

[39]  H. Chua,et al.  Risk avoidance: Graphs versus numbers , 2006, Memory & cognition.

[40]  B. Rimer,et al.  General Performance on a Numeracy Scale among Highly Educated Samples , 2001, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[41]  R. Thaler,et al.  Libertarian Paternalism , 2019, Encyclopedia of Law and Economics.

[42]  E. Peters,et al.  THE FUNCTIONS OF AFFECT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF PREFERENCES ( 2006 , 2008 .

[43]  P. Slovic,et al.  Risk Perception and Affect , 2006 .