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.
BanduraA. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84(2):191–215.
2.
BanduraA. Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educ Psychol. 1993;28(2):117–48.
3.
PetersE. Innumeracy in the Wild: Misunderstanding and Misusing Numbers. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2020.
4.
PetersETompkinsMKKnollMAZArdoinSPShoots-ReinhardBMearaAS. Despite high objective numeracy, lower numeric confidence relates to worse financial and medical outcomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116(39):19386–91.
5.
de VriesMFagerlinAWittemanHOSchererLD. Combining deliberation and intuition in patient decision support. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;91(2):154–60.
LågTBaugerLLindbergMFriborgO. The role of numeracy and intelligence in health-risk estimation and medical data interpretation. J Behav Decis Making. 2014;27(2):95–108.
8.
PetersEVastfjallDSlovicPMertzCKMazzoccoKDickertS. Numeracy and decision making. Psychol Sci. 2006;17(5):407–13.
9.
SchwartzLMWoloshinSBlackWCWelchHG. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:966–72.
10.
BonnerCTrevenaLJGaissmaierW, et al. Current best practice for presenting probabilities in patient decision aids: fundamental principles. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(7):821–33.
11.
PetersEShoots-ReinhardBTompkinsMK, et al. Improving numeracy through values affirmation enhances decision and STEM outcomes. PLoS One. 2017;12(7):e0180674.
12.
MaherCLewisLKatzmarzykPTDumuidDCassidyLOldsT. The associations between physical activity, sedentary behaviour and academic performance. J Sci Med Sport. 2016;19(12):1004–9.
13.
Garcia-RetameroRAndradeASharitJRuizJG. Is patients’ numeracy related to physical and mental health?Med Decis Making. 2015;35(4):501–11.
14.
EstradaCAMartin-HryniewiczMCollinsCByrdJCPeekBT. Literacy and numeracy skills and anticoagulation control. Am J Med Sci. 2004;328(2):88–93.
15.
Waldrop-ValverdeDOsbornCYRodriguezARothmanRLKumarMJonesDL. Numeracy skills explain racial differences in HIV medication management. AIDS Behav. 2010;14(4):799–806.
16.
GindeAAWeinerSGPallinDJCamargoCAJr. Multicenter study of limited health literacy in emergency department patients. Acad Emerg Med. 2008;15(6):577–80.
17.
McNaughtonCDCollinsSPKripalaniS, et al. Low numeracy is associated with increased odds of 30-day emergency department or hospital recidivism for patients with acute heart failure. Circ Heart Fail. 2013;6(1):40–6.
18.
PetrovaDGarcia-RetameroRCatenaA, et al. Numeracy predicts risk of pre-hospital decision delay: a retrospective study of acute coronary syndrome survival. Ann Behav Med. 2017;51(2):292–306.
19.
ChesneyDLShoots-ReinhardBPetersE. The causal impact of objective numeracy on judgments: improving numeracy via symbolic and non-symbolic approximate arithmetic training yields more consistent risk judgments. J Numer Cogn. 2021;7(3):351–67.
20.
DeckCJahediS. The effect of cognitive load on economic decision making: a survey and new experiments. Eur Econ Rev. 2015;78:97–119.
21.
BetschCHaaseNRenkewitzFSchmidP. The narrative bias revisited: what drives the biasing influence of narrative information on risk perceptions?Judgm Decis Making. 2015;10(3):241–64.
22.
BruinedeBruinWWallinAParkerAMStroughJHanmerJ. Effects of anti- versus pro-vaccine narratives on responses by recipients varying in numeracy: a cross-sectional survey-based experiment. Med Decis Making. 2017;37(8):860–70.
23.
GamlielEKreinerHGarcia-RetameroR. The moderating role of objective and subjective numeracy in attribute framing. Int J Psychol. 2016;51(2):109–16.
WeilAMWolfeCRReynaVFWidmerCLCedillos-WhynottEMBrust-RenckPG. Proficiency of FPPI and objective numeracy in assessing breast cancer risk estimation. Learn Individ Differ. 2015;43:149–55.
26.
PachurTGalesicM. Strategy selection in risky choice: the impact of numeracy, affect, and cross-cultural differences. J Behav Decis Making. 2013;26(3):260–71.
27.
PetersEDieckmannNFVästfjällDMertzCKSlovicPHibbardJH. Bringing meaning to numbers: the impact of evaluative categories on decisions. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2009;15(3):213–27.
28.
TraczykJFulawkaK. Numeracy moderates the influence of task-irrelevant affect on probability weighting. Cognition. 2016;151:37–41.
29.
PetersEFennemaMGTiedeKE. The loss-bet paradox: actuaries, accountants, and other numerate people rate numerically inferior gambles as superio. J Behav Decis Making. 2019;32(1):15–29.
30.
PennycookGCheyneJABarrNKoehlerDJFugelsangJA. The role of analytic thinking in moral judgements and values. Think Reason. 2014;20(2):188–214.
31.
SchererLDYatesJFBakerSGValentineKD. The influence of effortful thought and cognitive proficiencies on the conjunction fallacy: implications for dual-process theories of reasoning and judgment. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2017;43(6):874–87.
32.
GhazalSCokelyETGarcia-RetameroR. Predicting biases in very highly educated samples: numeracy and metacognition. Judgm Decis Making. 2014;9(1):15–34.
33.
ReynaVFNelsonWLHanPKDieckmannNF. How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychol Bull. 2009;135(6):943–73.
34.
LiberaliJMReynaVFFurlanSSteinLMPardoST. Individual differences in numeracy and cognitive reflection, with implications for biases and fallacies in probability judgment. J Behav Decis Making. 2012;25(4):361–81.
35.
CokelyETKelleyCM. Cognitive abilities and superior decision making under risk: a protocol analysis and process model evaluation. Judgm Decis Making. 2009;4(1):20–33.
36.
MarkovitsHde ChantalP-LBrissonJDubéÉThompsonVNewmanI. Reasoning strategies predict use of very fast logical reasoning. Mem Cognit. 2021;49(3):532–43.
37.
StoneERParkerAMTownsendLD. Distinguishing the ratio bias from unsystematic error: situation and individual-difference effects. J Behav Decis Making. 2018;31(4):587–601.
38.
ThompsonVA. Eye-tracking IQ: Cognitive capacity and strategy use on a ratio-bias task. Cognition. 2021;208:104523.
39.
ThompsonVAPennycookGTrippasDEvansJStBT. Do smart people have better intuitions?J Exp Psychol Gen. 2018;147(7):945–61.
40.
BaronJ. Intelligence and general strategies. In: UnderwoodG, ed. Strategies of Information Processing. London: Academic Press; 1978. p 403–50.
41.
PetersEBakerDPDieckmannNFLeonJCollinsJ. Explaining the effect of education on health: a field study in Ghana. Psychol Sci. 2010;21(10):1369–76.
42.
SimisMJMaddenHCacciatoreMAYeoSK. The lure of rationality: why does the deficit model persist in science communication?Public Underst Sci. 2016;25(4):400–14.
43.
HackettGBetzNE. A self-efficacy approach to the career development of women. J Vocat Behav. 1981;18(3):326–39.
44.
WaltonGMWilsonTD. Wise interventions: psychological remedies for social and personal problems. Psychol Rev. 2018;125(5):617–55.
45.
LorigKChastainRLUngEShoorSHolmanHR. Development and evaluation of a scale to measure perceived self-efficacy in people with arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1989;32(1):37–44.
46.
BodenheimerTLorigKHolmanHGrumbachK. Patient self-management of chronic disease in primary care. JAMA. 2002;288(19):2469–75.
47.
TrevenaLJBonnerCOkanYPetersEGaissmaierWHanPKJ, et al. Current challenges when using numbers in patient decision aids: advanced concepts. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(7):834–47.
48.
FagerlinAZikmund-FisherBJUbelPAJankovicADerryHASmithDM. Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):672–80.
49.
NelsonWLMoserRPHanPKJ. Exploring objective and subjective numeracy at a population level: findings from the 2007 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). J Health Commun. 2013;18(2):192–205.
50.
TraczykJSobkowAFulawkaKKusJPetrovaDGarcia-RetameroR. 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. Judgm Decis Making. 2018;13(4):372–81.
51.
HanochYMiron-ShatzTRolisonJJOzanneE. Understanding of BRCA1/2 genetic tests results: the importance of objective and subjective numeracy. Psychooncology. 2014;23(10):1142–8.
PetersEBjälkebringP. Multiple numeric competencies: when a number is not just a number. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2015;108(5):802–22.
54.
FörsterJLibermanNFriedmanRS. Seven principles of goal activation: a systematic approach to distinguishing goal priming from priming of non-goal constructs. Personal Soc Psychol Rev. 2007;11(3):211–33.
55.
DamischLStoberockBMussweilerT. Keep your fingers crossed! How superstition improves performance. Psychol Sci. 2010;21(7):1014–20.
56.
RyanRMDeciEL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol. 2000;55(1):68–78.
57.
HartWAlbarracínD. The effects of chronic achievement motivation and achievement primes on the activation of achievement and fun goals. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009;97(6):1129–41.
58.
SansoneC. A question of competence: the effects of competence and task feedback on intrinsic interest. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51(5):918–31.
59.
SchunkDH. Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning. Educ Psychol. 1990;25(1):71–86.
60.
LyonsIMBeilockSL. When math hurts: math anxiety predicts pain network activation in anticipation of doing math. PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e48076.
61.
GatobuSArochaJFHoffman-GoetzL. Numeracy and health numeracy among Chinese and Kenyan immigrants to Canada: role of math self-efficacy. SAGE Open. 2014;4(1):2158244014521437.
62.
KingstonJALyddyF. Self-efficacy and short-term memory capacity as predictors of proportional reasoning. Learn Individ Differ. 2013;26:185–90.
63.
SchwarzNCloreGL. Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: informative and directive functions of affective states. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1983;45(3):513–23.
64.
LibermanNFörsterJ. Inferences from decision difficulty. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2006;42(3):290–301.
65.
SlovicPFinucaneMPetersEMacGregorDG. Rational actors or rational fools: implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics. J Socio-Econ. 2002;31(4):329–42.
66.
KruglanskiAWShahJFishbachAFriedmanRChunWYSleeth-KepplerD. A theory of goal systems. In: ZannaMP, ed. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. San Diego (CA): Academic Press; 2002. p331–78.
67.
PetersEBjälkebringPShoots-ReinhardBMacDonaldT. Numeric self-efficacy, difficulty inferences, and risky choices. In process.
68.
FagerlinAZikmund-FisherBJSmithDM, et al. Women’s decisions regarding tamoxifen for breast cancer prevention: responses to a tailored decision aid. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;119(3):613–20.
69.
LuceMFPayneJWBettmanJR. The impact of emotional tradeoff difficulty on decision behavior. Confl Tradeoffs Decis Making. 2001;86–109.
70.
PetersE. Beyond comprehension: The role of numeracy in judgments and decisions. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2012;21(1):31–5.
71.
StanovichKE. Miserliness in human cognition: the interaction of detection, override and mindware. Think Reason. 2018;24(4):423–44.
72.
StanovichKE. Distinguishing the reflective, algorithmic, and autonomous minds: is it time for a tri-process theory? In: EvansJSBTFrankishK, eds. In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2009. p 55–88.
73.
EpsteinS. Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. Am Psychol. 1994;49(8):709–24.
74.
KahnemanD. A perspective on judgment and choice. Am Psychol. 2003;58(9):697–720.
75.
ReynaVF. How people make decisions that involve risk: a dual-processes approach. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2004;13(2):60–6.
76.
SlomanSA. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychol Bull. 1996;119(1):3–22.
77.
KahnemanDFrederickS. Representativeness revisited: attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In: GilovichTGriffinDKahnemanD, eds. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgement. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 2002. p 103–19.
78.
SlovicPPetersE. Risk perception and affect. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2006;15(6):322–5.
79.
PennycookGFugelsangJAKoehlerDJ. What makes us think? A three-stage dual-process model of analytic engagement. Cognit Psychol. 2015;80:34–72.
80.
ThompsonVA. Dual-process theories: a metacognitive perspective. In: In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2009. p 171–96.
81.
ReynaVFBrainerdCJ. Fuzzy-trace theory and framing effects in choice: gist extraction, truncation, and conversion. J Behav Decis Making. 1991;4(4):249–62.
82.
PetersELevinIP. Dissecting the risky-choice framing effect: numeracy as an individual-difference factor in weighting risky and riskless options. Judgm Decis Making. 2008;3(6):13.
83.
BoxGEP. Science and statistics. J Am Stat Assoc. 1976;71(356):791–9.
84.
BetzNEHackettG. The relationship of career-related self-efficacy expectations to perceived career options in college women and men. J Couns Psychol. 1981;28(5):399–410.
85.
ThompsonVA. What intuitions are . . . and are not. Psychol Learn Motiv. 2014;60:35–75.
86.
BriñolPPettyRETormalaZL. The malleable meaning of subjective ease. Psychol Sci. 2006;17(3):200–6.
87.
ChaterNLoewensteinG. The under-appreciated drive for sense-making. J Econ Behav Organ. 2016;126(part B):137–54.
88.
HessTMGermainCMSwaimELOsowskiNL. Aging and selective engagement: the moderating impact of motivation on older adults’ resource utilization. J Gerontol Ser B. 2009;64B(4):447–56.
89.
PettyRECacioppoJT. Involvement and persuasion: tradition versus integration. Psychol Bull. 1990;107(3):367–74.
90.
ThomsenCJBorgidaELavineH. The causes and consequences of personal involvement. In: PettyREKrosnickJA, eds. Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Earlbaum; 1995. p 191–214.
91.
FreitasALHigginsET. Enjoying goal-directed action: the role of regulatory fit. Psychol Sci. 2002;13(1):1–6.
92.
HigginsET. Value from hedonic experience and engagement. Psychol Rev. 2006;113(3):439–60.
93.
ArkesHRChristensenCLaiCBlumerC. Two methods of reducing overconfidence. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1987;39(1):133–44.
94.
CasselmanBLAtwoodCH. Improving general chemistry course performance through online homework-based metacognitive training. J Chem Educ. 2017;94(12):1811–21.
95.
PetersEHartPSTuslerMFraenkelL. Numbers matter to informed patient choices: a randomized design across age and numeracy levels. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(4):430–42.
96.
WegwarthOWagnerGGGigerenzerG. Can facts trump unconditional trust? Evidence-based information halves the influence of physicians’ non-evidence-based cancer screening recommendations. PLoS One. 2017;12(8):e0183024.
