IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v42y2022i6p729-740.html

Numeracy and the Motivational Mind: The Power of Numeric Self-efficacy

Author

Listed:
  • Ellen Peters

    (Center for Science Communication Research, School of Journalism and Communication, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA
    Psychology Department, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA)

  • Brittany Shoots-Reinhard

    (Center for Science Communication Research, School of Journalism and Communication, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA
    Psychology Department, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA)

Abstract

Background Objective numeracy appears to support better medical decisions and health outcomes. The more numerate generally understand and use numbers more and make better medical decisions, including more informed medical choices. Numeric self-efficacy—an aspect of subjective numeracy that is also known as numeric confidence—also relates to decision making via emotional reactions to and inferences from experienced difficulty with numbers and via persistence linked with numeric comprehension and healthier behaviors over time. Furthermore, it moderates the effects of objective numeracy on medical outcomes. Purpose We briefly review the numeracy and decision-making literature and then summarize more recent literature on 3 separable effects of numeric self-efficacy. Although dual-process theories can account for the generally superior decision making of the highly numerate, they have neglected effects of numeric self-efficacy. We discuss implications for medical decision-making (MDM) research and practice. Finally, we propose a modification to dual-process theories, adding a “motivational mind†to integrate the effects of numeric self-efficacy on decision-making processes (i.e., inferences from experienced difficulty with numbers, greater persistence, and greater use of objective-numeracy skills) important to high-quality MDM. Conclusions The power of numeric self-efficacy (confidence) has been little considered in MDM, but many medical decisions and behaviors require persistence to be successful over time (e.g., comprehension, medical-recommendation adherence). Including numeric self-efficacy in research and theorizing will increase understanding of MDM and promote development of better decision interventions. Highlights Research demonstrates that objective numeracy supports better medical decisions and health outcomes. The power of numeric self-efficacy (aka numeric confidence) has been little considered but appears critical to emotional reactions and inferences that patients and others make when encountering numeric information (e.g., in decision aids) and to greater persistence in medical decision-making tasks involving numbers. The present article proposes a novel modification to dual-process theory to account for newer findings and to describe how numeracy mechanisms can be better understood. Because being able to adapt interventions to improve medical decisions depends in part on having a good theory, future research should incorporate numeric self-efficacy into medical decision-making theories and interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Ellen Peters & Brittany Shoots-Reinhard, 2022. "Numeracy and the Motivational Mind: The Power of Numeric Self-efficacy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(6), pages 729-740, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:6:p:729-740
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X221099904
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X221099904
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X221099904?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edward T. Cokely & Colleen M. Kelley, 2009. "Cognitive abilities and superior decision making under risk: A protocol analysis and process model evaluation," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(1), pages 20-33, February.
    2. Cokely, Edward T. & Kelley, Colleen M., 2009. "Cognitive abilities and superior decision making under risk: A protocol analysis and process model evaluation," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(1), pages 20-33, February.
    3. Rocio Garcia-Retamero & Allen Andrade & Joseph Sharit & Jorge G. Ruiz, 2015. "Is Patients’ Numeracy Related to Physical and Mental Health?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(4), pages 501-511, May.
    4. 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.
    5. Ellen Peters & Irwin P. Levin, 2008. "Dissecting the risky-choice framing effect: Numeracy as an individual-difference factor in weighting risky and riskless options," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3(6), pages 435-448, August.
    6. Angela Fagerlin & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher & Peter A. Ubel & Aleksandra Jankovic & Holly A. Derry & Dylan M. Smith, 2007. "Measuring Numeracy without a Math Test: Development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 672-680, September.
    7. Jakub Traczyk & Agata Sobkow & Kamil Fulawka & Jakub Kus & Dafina Petrova & Rocio Garcia-Retamero, 2018. "Numerate decision makers don't use more effortful strategies unless it pays: A process tracing investigation of skilled and adaptive strategy selection in risky decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(4), pages 372-381, July.
    8. Carissa Bonner & Lyndal J. Trevena & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Paul K. J. Han & Yasmina Okan & Elissa Ozanne & Ellen Peters & Daniëlle Timmermans & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2021. "Current Best Practice for Presenting Probabilities in Patient Decision Aids: Fundamental Principles," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 821-833, October.
    9. Saima Ghazal & Edward T. Cokely & Rocio Garcia-Retamero, 2014. "Predicting biases in very highly educated samples: Numeracy and metacognition," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(1), pages 15-34, January.
    10. Ian M Lyons & Sian L Beilock, 2012. "When Math Hurts: Math Anxiety Predicts Pain Network Activation in Anticipation of Doing Math," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(10), pages 1-6, October.
    11. Thomas M. Hess & Cassandra M. Germain & Elizabeth L. Swaim & Nicole L. Osowski, 2009. "Aging and Selective Engagement: The Moderating Impact of Motivation on Older Adults' Resource Utilization," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 64(4), pages 447-456.
    12. Ellen Peters & Brittany Shoots-Reinhard & Mary Kate Tompkins & Dan Schley & Louise Meilleur & Aleksander Sinayev & Martin Tusler & Laura Wagner & Jennifer Crocker, 2017. "Improving numeracy through values affirmation enhances decision and STEM outcomes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(7), pages 1-19, July.
    13. Traczyk, Jakub & Sobkow, Agata & Fulawka, Kamil & Kus, Jakub & Petrova, Dafina & Garcia-Retamero, Rocio, 2018. "Numerate decision makers don’t use more effortful strategies unless it pays: A process tracing investigation of skilled and adaptive strategy selection in risky decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(4), pages 372-381, July.
    14. Deck, Cary & Jahedi, Salar, 2015. "The effect of cognitive load on economic decision making: A survey and new experiments," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 97-119.
    15. Cornelia Betsch & Niels Haase & Frank Renkewitz & Philipp Schmid, 2015. "The narrative bias revisited: What drives the biasing influence of narrative information on risk perceptions?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(3), pages 241-264, May.
    16. Peters, Ellen & Levin, Irwin P., 2008. "Dissecting the risky-choice framing effect: Numeracy as an individual-difference factor in weighting risky and riskless options," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(6), pages 435-448, August.
    17. Betsch, Cornelia & Haase, Niels & Renkewitz, Frank & Schmid, Philipp, 2015. "The narrative bias revisited: What drives the biasing influence of narrative information on risk perceptions?," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(3), pages 241-264, May.
    18. Lyndal J. Trevena & Carissa Bonner & Yasmina Okan & Ellen Peters & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Paul K. J. Han & Elissa Ozanne & Danielle Timmermans & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2021. "Current Challenges When Using Numbers in Patient Decision Aids: Advanced Concepts," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 834-847, October.
    19. Wegwarth, Odette & Wagner, Gert G. & Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2017. "Can facts trump unconditional trust? Evidence-based information halves the influence of physicians’ non-evidence-based cancer screening recommendations," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 12(8), pages 1-12.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Villanova, Daniel & Pandelaere, Mario, 2024. "A Numeracy-Task interaction model of perceived differences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sobkow, Agata & Olszewska, Angelika & Traczyk, Jakub, 2020. "Multiple numeric competencies predict decision outcomes beyond fluid intelligence and cognitive reflection," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    2. Mondal, Supratik & Traczyk, Jakub, 2023. "Conditionality of adaptiveness: Investigating the relationship between numeracy and adaptive behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    3. Villanova, Daniel & Pandelaere, Mario, 2024. "A Numeracy-Task interaction model of perceived differences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    4. Jakub Traczyk & Agata Sobkow & Kamil Fulawka & Jakub Kus & Dafina Petrova & Rocio Garcia-Retamero, 2018. "Numerate decision makers don't use more effortful strategies unless it pays: A process tracing investigation of skilled and adaptive strategy selection in risky decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(4), pages 372-381, July.
    5. Nicolas Eber & Patrick Roger & Tristan Roger, 2024. "Finance and intelligence: An overview of the literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 503-554, April.
    6. Saima Ghazal & Edward T. Cokely & Rocio Garcia-Retamero, 2014. "Predicting biases in very highly educated samples: Numeracy and metacognition," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(1), pages 15-34, January.
    7. Rebecca Blase & Julia Meis-Harris & Birgitta Weltermann & Simone Dohle, 2024. "Icon Arrays for Medical Risk Communication: Do Icon Type and Color Influence Cardiovascular Risk Perception and Recall?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(6), pages 661-673, August.
    8. Muhammad Waqas & Alishba Hania & Farzan Yahya & Iqra Malik, 2023. "Enhancing Cybersecurity: The Crucial Role of Self-Regulation, Information Processing, and Financial Knowledge in Combating Phishing Attacks," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, December.
    9. Todd McElroy & David L. Dickinson & Irwin P. Levin, 2019. "Thinking About Decisions: An Integrative Approach of Person and Task Factors," Working Papers 19-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    10. Ray Saadaoui Mallek & Mohamed Albaity, 2019. "Individual differences and cognitive reflection across gender and nationality the case of the United Arab Emirates," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 1567965-156, January.
    11. André Mata & Tiago Almeida, 2014. "Using metacognitive cues to infer others' thinking," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(4), pages 349-359, July.
    12. Dawn Stacey & Robert J. Volk, 2021. "The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration: Evidence Update 2.0," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 729-733, October.
    13. Zonca, Joshua & Coricelli, Giorgio & Polonio, Luca, 2020. "Gaze patterns disclose the link between cognitive reflection and sophistication in strategic interaction," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(2), pages 230-245, March.
    14. Elisa Darriet & Marianne Guille & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2021. "Financial Literacy and Numeracy," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-03461252, HAL.
    15. Jonathan J. Rolison & Kinga Morsanyi & Ellen Peters, 2020. "Understanding Health Risk Comprehension: The Role of Math Anxiety, Subjective Numeracy, and Objective Numeracy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(2), pages 222-234, February.
    16. Michelle S. Segovia & Marco A. Palma & Jayson L. Lusk & Andreas C. Drichoutis, 2025. "Visual formats in risk preference elicitation: What catches the eye?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 70(3), pages 275-303, June.
    17. Kevin E. Tiede & Wolfgang Gaissmaier, 2023. "How Do People Process Different Representations of Statistical Information? Insights into Cognitive Effort, Representational Inconsistencies, and Individual Differences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(7-8), pages 803-820, October.
    18. Mark Schneider, 2018. "A Dual System Model of Risk and Time Preferences," Working Papers 18-18, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    19. Nikola Erceg & Zvonimir Galić & Mitja RužojÄ ić, 2020. "A reflection on cognitive reflection – testing convergent/divergent validity of two measures of cognitive reflection," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(5), pages 741-755, September.
    20. Mark Schneider, 2016. "Dual Process Utility Theory: A Model of Decisions Under Risk and Over Time," Working Papers 16-23, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:6:p:729-740. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.