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 require...
| Publicado en: | Medical Decision Making Vol. 43; no. 7/8; pp. 803 - 821 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , |
| Formato: | equations & formulas research tables/charts Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
Sage Publications Inc.
Oct/Nov2023
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=173439459&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 173439459 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 0272989X DKI jtl: Medical Decision Making issn: 0272989X maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: Oct/Nov2023 vid: 43 iid: 7/8 pid: 344 pub: Sage Publications Inc. place: Thousand Oaks, California artinfo: ui: 173439459 173001463 173439459 173439459 10.1177/0272989X231202505 173439459 ppf: 803 ppct: 18 formats: tig: atl: How Do People Process Different Representations of Statistical Information? Insights into Cognitive Effort, Representational Inconsistencies, and Individual Differences. aug: au: Tiede, Kevin E. Gaissmaier, Wolfgang affil: Department of Psychology, University of Konstanz, Germany sug: subj: Mental Processes Statistics Psychometrics Evaluation Human Information Literacy Evaluation Cognition Evaluation Funding Source ab: 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. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: equations & formulas research tables/charts Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|