IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v9y2014i1p15-34_2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Predicting biases in very highly educated samples: Numeracy and metacognition

Author

Listed:
  • Ghazal, Saima
  • Cokely, Edward T.
  • Garcia-Retamero, Rocio

Abstract

We investigated the relations between numeracy and superior judgment and decision making in two large community outreach studies in Holland (n=5408). In these very highly educated samples (e.g., 30–50% held graduate degrees), the Berlin Numeracy Test was a robust predictor of financial, medical, and metacognitive task performance (i.e., lotteries, intertemporal choice, denominator neglect, and confidence judgments), independent of education, gender, age, and another numeracy assessment. Metacognitive processes partially mediated the link between numeracy and superior performance. More numerate participants performed better because they deliberated more during decision making and more accurately evaluated their judgments (e.g., less overconfidence). Results suggest that well-designed numeracy tests tend to be robust predictors of superior judgment and decision making because they simultaneously assess (1) mathematical competency and (2) metacognitive and self-regulated learning skills.

Suggested Citation

  • Ghazal, Saima & Cokely, Edward T. & Garcia-Retamero, Rocio, 2014. "Predicting biases in very highly educated samples: Numeracy and metacognition," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 15-34, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:1:p:15-34_2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500004952/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:1:p:15-34_2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.