How Do People Process Different Representations of Statistical Information? Insights into Cognitive Effort, Representational Inconsistencies, and Individual Differences

Kevin E. Tiede and Wolfgang Gaissmaier
Additional contact information
Kevin E. Tiede: Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Germany
Wolfgang Gaissmaier: Department of Psychology, University of Konstanz, Germany

Medical Decision Making, 2023, vol. 43, issue 7-8, 803-820

Abstract: 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.

Keywords: cognitive effort; decision aids; graph literacy; icon arrays; numeracy; risk communication (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X231202505 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:43:y:2023:i:7-8:p:803-820

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X231202505

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().