How Do People Process Different Representations of Statistical Information? Insights into Cognitive Effort, Representational Inconsistencies, and Individual Differences.

BACKGROUND: Graphical representation formats (e.g., icon arrays) have been shown to lead to better understanding of the benefits and risks of treatments compared to numbers. We investigate the cognitive processes underlying the effects of format on understanding: how much cognitive effort is required to process numerical and graphical representations, how people process inconsistent representations, and how numeracy and graph literacy affect information processing. METHODS: In a preregistered between-participants experiment, 665 participants answered questions about the relative frequencies of benefits and side effects of 6 medications. First, we manipulated whether the medical information was represented numerically, graphically (as icon arrays), or inconsistently (numerically for 3 medications and graphically for the other 3). Second, to examine cognitive effort, we manipulated whether there was time pressure or not. In an additional intervention condition, participants translated graphical information into numerical information before answering questions. We also assessed numeracy and graph literacy. RESULTS: Processing icon arrays was more strongly affected by time pressure than processing numbers, suggesting that graphical formats required more cognitive effort. Understanding was lower when information was represented inconsistently (v. consistently) but not if there was a preceding intervention. Decisions based on inconsistent representations were biased toward graphically represented options. People with higher numeracy processed quantitative information more efficiently than people with lower numeracy did. Graph literacy was not related to processing efficiency. LIMITATIONS: Our study was conducted with a nonpatient sample, and the medical information was hypothetical. CONCLUSIONS: Although graphical (v. numerical) formats have previously been found to lead to better understanding, they may require more cognitive effort. Therefore, the goal of risk communication may play an important role when choosing how to communicate medical information. HIGHLIGHTS: This article investigates the cognitive processes underlying the effects of representation format on the understanding of statistical information and individual differences therein.Processing icon arrays required more cognitive effort than processing numbers did.When information was represented inconsistently (i.e., partly numerically and partly graphically), understanding was lower than with consistent representation, and decisions were biased toward the graphically represented options.People with higher numeracy processed quantitative information more efficiently than people with lower numeracy did.

The Lure of Beauty: People Select Representations of Statistical Information Largely Based on Attractiveness, Not Comprehensibility.

OBJECTIVE: People differ in whether they understand graphical or numerical representations of statistical information better. However, assessing these skills is often not feasible when deciding which representation to select or use. This study investigates whether people choose the representation they understand better, whether this choice can improve risk comprehension, and whether results are influenced by participants' skills (graph literacy and numeracy). METHODS: In an experiment, 160 participants received information about the benefits and side effects of painkillers using either a numerical or a graphical representation. In the "no choice" condition, the representation was randomly assigned to each participant. In the "choice" condition, participants could select the representation they would like to receive. The study assessed gist and verbatim knowledge (immediate comprehension and recall), accessibility of the information, attractiveness of the representation, as well as graph literacy and numeracy. RESULTS: In the "choice" condition, most (62.5%) chose the graphical format, yet there was no difference in graph literacy or numeracy (nor age or gender) between people who chose the graphical or the numerical format. Whereas choice slightly increased verbatim knowledge, it did not improve gist or overall knowledge compared with random assignment. However, participants who chose a representation rated the representation as more attractive, and those who chose graphs rated them as more accessible than those without a choice. LIMITATIONS: The sample consisted of highly educated undergraduate students with higher graph literacy than the general population. The task was inconsequential for participants in terms of their health. CONCLUSIONS: When people can choose between representations, they fail to identify what they comprehend better but largely base that choice on how attractive the representation is for them. HIGHLIGHTS: People differ systematically in whether they understand graphical or numerical representations of statistical information better. However, assessing these underlying skills to get the right representation to the right people is not feasible in practice. A simple and efficient method to achieve this could be to let people choose among representations themselves.However, our study showed that allowing participants to choose a representation (numerical v. graphical) did not improve overall or gist knowledge compared with determining the representation randomly, even though it did slightly improve verbatim knowledge.Rather, participants largely chose the representation they found more attractive. Most preferred the graphical representation, including those with low graph literacy.It would therefore be important to develop graphical representations that are not only attractive but also comprehensible even for people with low graph literacy.

Revisiting the Open Sampling format: Improving risky choices through a novel graphical representation.

When making risky choices, people often fall short of the norm of expected value (EV) maximization. Previous research has shown that presenting options in the Open Sampling (OSa) format, a 10-by-10 matrix of randomly arranged outcomes, can improve choices and reduce decision times. First, the current research aims to replicate and extend the findings on the OSa format. To this end, we compare OSa to the common description-based format as well as further graphical representations, and investigate the resulting accordance with EV maximization and decision time. Second, we study whether people lower (vs. higher) in numeracy, the ability to use probabilistic and mathematical concepts, particularly benefit from a graphical representation of options. We conducted five high-powered studies (total N = 1,575) in which participants chose repeatedly between two risky gambles, using different populations and gamble-problem sets. Overall, we could not find a benefit of the OSa format in terms of EV accordance in any of the five studies. However, three studies also tested a novel variant of the OSa format with grouped outcomes and found that it consistently improved EV accordance compared with all other formats. All graphical formats led to faster decisions without harming decision quality. The effects of presentation format were not moderated by numeracy in three of the four studies that assessed numeracy. In conclusion, our research introduces a new presentation format which consistently improves risky choices and can also be used to communicate risks in applied contexts such as medical decision making.

Subgroup Splits in Diverse Work Teams: Subgroup Perceptions but Not Demographic Faultlines Affect Team Identification and Emotional Exhaustion.

We investigate the relationship between (hypothetical) subgroup splits (i.e., faultlines), subjectively perceived subgroups, and team identification and emotional exhaustion. Based on the job demands-resources model and on self-categorization theory, we propose that faultline strength and perceived subgroups negatively affect emotional exhaustion, mediated by team identification. We further propose that subgroup identification moderates the mediation such that subgroup identification compensates low levels of team identification. We tested our hypotheses with a two-wave questionnaire study in a sample of 105 participants from 48 teams from various contexts. We found an effect of perceived subgroups on emotional exhaustion mediated by team identification, but no direct or indirect effect of faultline strength on emotional exhaustion. We also could not find that subgroup identification moderates the effect of team identification on emotional exhaustion. We discuss the need for further research on the link of subgroup splits in work teams and the rise of psychological health issues and derive that measures to prevent burnout should primarily focus on avoiding or reducing subgroup perception whereas affecting the actual demographic composition of work team should be of lower priority.

When Does the Incremental Risk Format Aid Informed Medical Decisions? The Role of Learning, Feedback, and Number of Treatment Options.

Background. Informed medical decisions require understanding the benefits and risks of treatments. This entails comparing treatment outcomes to a control group. The incremental risk format has been recommended as it directly visualizes the differences between treatment and control group in 1 graph, whereas they have to be calculated from 2 separate graphs in the total risk format. We investigated when the incremental risk format aids understanding. Methods. In 2 experiments, participants received information about medical treatments, either as incremental or total risk format. We assessed verbatim knowledge (precise quantitative knowledge), gist knowledge (knowledge of essential meaning), and evaluations of the formats. Study 1 (N = 99) consisted of only 1 trial with medical information and also assessed recall. Study 2 (N = 222) assessed learning across multiple trials and also varied the presence of feedback and the number of treatment options. Results. In study 1, the incremental risk format (v. total risk format) led to worse knowledge, recall, and evaluations. In study 2, participants learned to understand the incremental risk format over time, resulting in comparable verbatim knowledge and evaluations as in the total risk format, as well as in even better gist knowledge. Feedback and number of treatment options did not moderate the effect of risk format. Limitations. The studies were conducted with nonpatient samples, and study 2 employed hypothetical treatments. Conclusions. The incremental risk format was initially less understandable than the total risk format. After a short learning period, however, the incremental risk format resulted in better gist knowledge and was comparable otherwise, which suggests that participants had to get used to that format. This has important implications for the study of new formats.

The loss-bet paradox: Actuaries, accountants, and other numerate people rate numerically inferior gambles as superior.

Psychologists have convincingly demonstrated that preferences are not always stable and, instead, are often "constructed" based on information available in the judgment or decision context. In 4 studies with experts (accountants and actuaries in Studies 1 and 2, respectively) and a diverse lay population (Studies 3 and 4), the evidence was consistent with the highly numerate being more likely than the less numerate to construct their preferences by rating a numerically inferior bet as superior (i.e., the bets effect). Thus, the effect generalizes beyond a college student sample, and preference construction differs by numeracy. Contrary to prior thinking about preference construction, however, high expertise and high ability (rather than low) consistently related to the paradoxical phenomenon. Results across studies including Study 3's experimental modifications of the task supported the hypothesized number comparison process (and not a lack of expertise with monetary outcomes and probabilities or numeracy-related differences in attention to numbers) as the effect's underlying cause. The bets effect was not attenuated by Study 4's instructions to think about what would be purchased with bet winnings. Task results combined with free-response coding supported the notion that highly numerate participants have a systematic and persistent inclination for doing simple and complex number operations that drive their judgments (even after controlling for nonnumeric intelligence). Implications for 3 types of dual-process theories are discussed. The results were inconsistent with default-interventionist theories, consistent or unclear with respect to fuzzy trace theory, and consistent with interactive theories.