4.4 Review

Numeracy, ratio bias, and denominator neglect in judgments of risk and probability

期刊

LEARNING AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
卷 18, 期 1, 页码 89-107

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2007.03.011

关键词

dual processes; fuzzy-trace theory; base-rate neglect; cognitive-experiential theory; intuition; rationality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Numeracy, so-called on analogy with literacy, is essential for making health and other social judgments in everyday life [Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (in press). The importance of mathematics in health and human judgment: Numeracy, risk communication, and medical decision making. Learning and Individual Differences.]. Recent research on numeracy in health decision making has shown that many adults fail to solve simple ratio and decimal problems, concepts that are prerequisites for understanding health-relevant risk communications. In addition, adults exhibit a ratio bias, in which higher frequencies bias probability judgments, and denominator neglect, described by Reyna and Brainerd (e.g., [Reyna, V. F. (199 1). Class inclusion, the conjunction fallacy, and other cognitive illusions. Developmental Review, 11, 317-336.; Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (1994). The origins of probability judgment: A review of data and theories. In G. Wright & P. Ayton (Eds.), Subjective probability. (pp. 239-272). New York: Wiley.]) and independently by Epstein (e.g., [Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709-724.]). Along with research in education and cognitive development, this work demonstrates that adults have difficulty with a broad range of ratio concepts, including fractions, proportions, risks and probabilities. The psychological mechanisms underlying this difficulty are characterized using dual-processes approaches such as fuzzy-trace theory, simple and effective interventions are described that eliminate common problem-solving errors, and implications for the effective use of numerical information in risk communication are discussed. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据