IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v44y2024i8p890-899.html

Natural Frequencies Improve Public Understanding of Medical Test Results: An Experimental Study on Various Bayesian Inference Tasks with Multiple Scoring Methods and Non-Bayesian Reasoning Strategies

Author

Listed:
  • Soyun Kim

Abstract

Background It is well established that the natural frequencies (NF) format is cognitively more beneficial for Bayesian inference than the conditional probabilities (CP) format. However, empirical studies have suggested that the NF facilitation effect might be limited to specific groups of individuals. Unlike previous studies that focused on a limited number of Bayesian inference problems evaluated by a single scoring method, it was essential to examine multiple Bayesian problems using various scoring metrics. This study also explored the impact of numeracy on Bayesian inference and assessed non-Bayesian cognitive strategies using the numerical information in problem solving. Methods In a Web-based experimental survey, 175 South Korean adults were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 format groups (NF v. CP). After completing numeracy scales, participants were asked to estimate 4 Bayesian inference problems and document the numerical information used in their problem-solving process. Four scoring methods—strict rounding, loose rounding, absolute deviation, and 50-Split—were used to evaluate participants’ estimations. Results The NF format generally outperformed the CP format across all problems, except in a chorionic villus sampling test problem when evaluated using the 50-Split method. In addition, numeracy levels significantly influenced Bayesian inference; participants with higher numeracy demonstrated better performance. In addition, participants used various non-Bayesian strategies influenced by the format and the nature of the problems. Conclusions The NF facilitation effect was consistently observed across multiple Bayesian problems and scoring methods. Individuals with higher numeracy levels benefited more from the NF format. The use of various non-Bayesian strategies varied with the formats and nature of specific tasks. Highlights The natural frequencies (NF) format is known to foster understanding of medical test results compared with the conditional probabilities (CP) format, but some studies have reported that this benefit is either nonexistent or limited to specific groups. This study aims to replicate previous empirical studies using various Bayesian problems using multiple scoring methods. The NF format fosters understanding of medical test results across all Bayesian problems by all scoring methods, except in the CVS problem when using a 50-Split scoring method. Participants with high numeracy perform better Bayesian inference than those with lower numeracy. Particularly, higher numerates benefit more in the NF format than lower numerates do. In addition, the public tend to use various non-Bayesian reasoning strategies depending on the format and the nature of the tasks.

Suggested Citation

  • Soyun Kim, 2024. "Natural Frequencies Improve Public Understanding of Medical Test Results: An Experimental Study on Various Bayesian Inference Tasks with Multiple Scoring Methods and Non-Bayesian Reasoning Strategies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(8), pages 890-899, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:8:p:890-899
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X241275191
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X241275191
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X241275191?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. Stefania Pighin & Michel Gonzalez & Lucia Savadori & Vittorio Girotto, 2016. "Natural Frequencies Do Not Foster Public Understanding of Medical Test Results," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(6), pages 686-691, August.
    2. Mirta Galesic & Gerd Gigerenzer & Nils Straubinger, 2009. "Natural Frequencies Help Older Adults and People with Low Numeracy to Evaluate Medical Screening Tests," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(3), pages 368-371, May.
    3. Isaac M. Lipkus & Greg Samsa & Barbara K. Rimer, 2001. "General Performance on a Numeracy Scale among Highly Educated Samples," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 37-44, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Yaniv Hanoch & Jonathan J. Rolison & Alexandra M. Freund, 2018. "Does Medical Risk Perception and Risk Taking Change with Age?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 917-928, May.
    2. Fuchsman, Dillon & McGee, Josh B. & Zamarro, Gema, 2023. "Teachers’ willingness to pay for retirement benefits: A national stated preferences experiment," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    3. Dillon Fuchsman & Josh McGee & Gema Zamarro, 2022. "Teachers’ Knowledge and Preparedness for Retirement: Results from a Nationally Representative Teacher Survey," Working Papers 21-5, Sinquefield Center for Applied Economic Research, Saint Louis University.
    4. Theresa Kuchler & Basit Zafar, 2019. "Personal Experiences and Expectations about Aggregate Outcomes," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 74(5), pages 2491-2542, October.
    5. Yaniv Hanoch & Talya Miron-Shatz & Mary Himmelstein, 2010. "Genetic testing and risk interpretation: How do women understand lifetime risk results?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(2), pages 116-123, April.
    6. Ralph Stevens & Jennifer Alonso Garcia & Hazel Bateman & Arthur van Soest & Johan Bonekamp, 2022. "Saving preferences after retirement," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/342267, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    7. Andrea D. Gurmankin & Jonathan Baron & Katrina Armstrong, 2004. "The Effect of Numerical Statements of Risk on Trust and Comfort with Hypothetical Physician Risk Communication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(3), pages 265-271, June.
    8. Cathy Anne Pinto & Gin Nie Chua & John F. P. Bridges & Ella Brookes & Johanna Hyacinthe & Tommi Tervonen, 2022. "Comparing Patient Preferences for Antithrombotic Treatment During the Acute and Chronic Phases of Myocardial Infarction: A Discrete-Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(2), pages 255-266, March.
    9. Atanasov, Pavel & Witkowski, Jens & Ungar, Lyle & Mellers, Barbara & Tetlock, Philip, 2020. "Small steps to accuracy: Incremental belief updaters are better forecasters," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 19-35.
    10. Diego Fernandez-Duque & Timothy Wifall, 2007. "Actor/observer asymmetry in risky decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 1-8, February.
    11. Hazel Bateman & Christine Eckert & Fedor Iskhakov & Jordan Louviere & Stephen Satchell & Susan Thorp, 2017. "Default and naive diversification heuristics in annuity choice," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 42(1), pages 32-57, February.
    12. Jessica R. Carré & Shelby R. Curtis & Daniel N. Jones, 2023. "Making decisions affecting oneself versus others: The effect of interpersonal closeness and Dark Triad traits," Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(1), pages 328-340, January.
    13. Thorp, S. & Bateman, H. & Dobrescu, L.I. & Newell, B.R. & Ortmann, A., 2020. "Flicking the switch: Simplifying disclosure to improve retirement plan choices," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    14. William J. Burns & Ellen Peters & Paul Slovic, 2012. "Risk Perception and the Economic Crisis: A Longitudinal Study of the Trajectory of Perceived Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 659-677, April.
    15. Mark A. Andor & Thomas K. Bauer & Jana Eßer & Christoph M. Schmidt & Lukas Tomberg, 2025. "Who Gets Vaccinated? Cognitive and Non‐Cognitive Predictors of Individual Behaviour in Pandemics," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 87(3), pages 562-585, June.
    16. Hannah Collacott & Andrea Phillips-Beyer & Nicolas Krucien & Bruno Flamion & Kevin Marsh, 2024. "Patients’ Preferences for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Treatments—A Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 17(3), pages 287-300, May.
    17. David Ronayne & Roberto Veneziani & William R. Zame, 2022. "Do Decision Makers Have Subjective Probabilities? An Experimental Test," Working Papers 940, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    18. Michele Garagnani, 2023. "The predictive power of risk elicitation tasks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 165-192, October.
    19. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., "undated". "When does real become consequential in non-hypothetical choice experiments?," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274040, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Bernt Kartman & Gudrun Gatz & Magnus Johannesson, 2004. "Health State Utilities in Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Patients with Heartburn: A Study in Germany and Sweden," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(1), pages 40-52, January.

    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:44:y:2024:i:8:p:890-899. 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.