Cargando…

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tiede, Kevin E., Gaissmaier, Wolfgang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10625726/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37842816
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272989X231202505
_version_ 1785131193173278720
author Tiede, Kevin E.
Gaissmaier, Wolfgang
author_facet Tiede, Kevin E.
Gaissmaier, Wolfgang
author_sort Tiede, Kevin E.
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10625726
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106257262023-11-06 How Do People Process Different Representations of Statistical Information? Insights into Cognitive Effort, Representational Inconsistencies, and Individual Differences Tiede, Kevin E. Gaissmaier, Wolfgang Med Decis Making Original Research Articles 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. SAGE Publications 2023-10-16 /pmc/articles/PMC10625726/ /pubmed/37842816 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272989X231202505 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Research Articles
Tiede, Kevin E.
Gaissmaier, Wolfgang
How Do People Process Different Representations of Statistical Information? Insights into Cognitive Effort, Representational Inconsistencies, and Individual Differences
title How Do People Process Different Representations of Statistical Information? Insights into Cognitive Effort, Representational Inconsistencies, and Individual Differences
title_full How Do People Process Different Representations of Statistical Information? Insights into Cognitive Effort, Representational Inconsistencies, and Individual Differences
title_fullStr How Do People Process Different Representations of Statistical Information? Insights into Cognitive Effort, Representational Inconsistencies, and Individual Differences
title_full_unstemmed How Do People Process Different Representations of Statistical Information? Insights into Cognitive Effort, Representational Inconsistencies, and Individual Differences
title_short How Do People Process Different Representations of Statistical Information? Insights into Cognitive Effort, Representational Inconsistencies, and Individual Differences
title_sort how do people process different representations of statistical information? insights into cognitive effort, representational inconsistencies, and individual differences
topic Original Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10625726/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37842816
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272989X231202505
work_keys_str_mv AT tiedekevine howdopeopleprocessdifferentrepresentationsofstatisticalinformationinsightsintocognitiveeffortrepresentationalinconsistenciesandindividualdifferences
AT gaissmaierwolfgang howdopeopleprocessdifferentrepresentationsofstatisticalinformationinsightsintocognitiveeffortrepresentationalinconsistenciesandindividualdifferences