In recent years, researchers have examined how numerical ability may moderate an individual’s response to different types of numeric information, but there is scant research examining how numerical ability may moderate responses to non-numeric vs. numeric information. The present study uses an experiment (complete data for 120 participants) to examine a moderated-mediation model that tests how numeracy may moderate the impact of numeric and non-numeric descriptions of climate change risks on worry and concern for victims, which may, in turn, impact willingness to donate to relevant organizations. The inclusion of numeric instead of non-numeric descriptors significantly increased both concern for victims and willingness to donate for low numerate individuals while there was no difference for highly numerate individuals.
AvornJShrankWH (2009) Communicating drug benefits and risks effectively: There must be a better way. Annals of Internal Medicine150(8): 563–564.
2.
BlackWCNeaseRFTostesonANA (1995) Perceptions of breast cancer risk and screening effectiveness in women younger than 50 years of age. Journal of the National Cancer Institute87(10): 720–731.
3.
BoykoffMTBoykoffJM (2004) Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change14(2): 125–136.
4.
BoykoffMTBoykoffJM (2007) Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum38(6): 1190–1204.
5.
DieckmannNFSlovicPPetersE (2009) The use of narrative evidence and explicit likelihood by decisionmakers varying in numeracy. Risk Analysis29(10): 1473–1488.
6.
DunlapREMcCrightAM (2008) A widening gap: Republican and Democratic views on climate change. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development50(5): 26–35.
7.
DunlapREXiaoCMcCrightAM (2001) Politics and environment in America: Partisan and ideological cleavages in public support for environmentalism. Environmental Politics10(4): 23–48.
8.
FrederickS (2005) Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives19(4): 25–42.
9.
GigerenzerGGaissmaierWKurz-MilckeESchwartzLMWoloshinS (2008) Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest8(2): 53–96.
10.
HalvorsenPASelmerRKristiansenIS (2007) Different ways to describe the benefits of risk-reducing treatments. Annals of Internal Medicine146(12): 848–856.
11.
HartPS (2011) One or many? The influence of episodic and thematic climate change frames on policy preferences and individual behavior change. Science Communication33(1): 28–51.
12.
HartPSLeiserowitzAA (2009) Finding the teachable moment: An analysis of information-seeking behavior on global warming related websites during the release of The Day After Tomorrow. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture3(3): 355–366.
13.
HartPSNisbetEC (2012) Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research39(6): 701–723.
14.
HillisDMBullJJ (1993) An empirical test of bootstrapping as a method for assessing confidence in phylogenetic analysis. Systematic Biology42(2): 182–192.
15.
KnouseSB (1983) The letter of recommendation: Specificity and favorability of information. Personnel Psychology36(2): 331–341.
16.
KrosnickJAHolbrookALVisserPS (2000) The impact of the fall 1997 debate about global warming on American public opinion. Public Understanding of Science9(3): 239–260.
17.
LeiserowitzAA (2005) American risk perceptions: Is climate change dangerous?Risk Analysis25(6): 1433–1442.
18.
LipkusIMSamsaGRimerBK (2001) General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Medical Decision Making21(1): 37–44.
19.
MaibachEWRoser-RenoufCLeiserowitzA (2008) Communication and marketing as climate change-intervention assets: A public health perspective. American Journal of Preventive Medicine35(5): 488–500.
20.
MaibachEWRoser-RenoufCLeiserowitzA (2009) Global Warming’s Six Americas 2009: An Audience Segmentation Analysis. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University/Fairfax, VA: Center for Climate Change Communication, Department of Communication, George Mason University.
21.
McComasKAShanahanJ (1999) Telling stories about global climate change: Measuring the impact of narratives on issue cycles. Communication Research26(1): 30–57.
22.
McCrightAMDunlapRE (2000) Challenging global warming as a social problem: An analysis of the conservative movement’s counter-claims. Social Problems47(4): 499–522.
23.
McCrightAMDunlapRE (2003) Defeating Kyoto: The conservative movement’s impact on US climate change policy. Social Problems50(3): 348–373.
24.
MoserSCDillingL (2007) Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
NisbetMC (2009) Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development51(2): 12–23.
26.
O’KeefeDJ (1998) Justification explicitness and persuasive effect: A meta-analytic review of the effects of varying support articulation in persuasive messages. Argumentation and Advocacy35(Fall): 61–75.
27.
O’KeefeDJ (2007) Potential conflicts between normatively-responsible advocacy and successful social influence: Evidence from persuasion effects research. Argumentation21(2): 151–163.
28.
PetersEVastfjallDSlovicPMertzCKMazzoccoKDickertS (2006) Numeracy and decision making. Psychological Science17(5): 407–413.
29.
PetersEHibbardJSlovicPDieckmannN (2007) Numeracy skill and the communication, comprehension, and use of risk-benefit information. Health Affairs26(3): 741–748.
30.
PreacherKJHayesAF (2004) SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods36(4): 717–731.
31.
PreacherKJHayesAF (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods40(3): 879–891.
ReynaVFBrainerdCJ (2007) The importance of mathematics in health and human judgment: Numeracy, risk communication, and medical decision making. Learning and Individual Differences17: 147–159.
34.
ReynaVFNelsonWLHanPKDieckmannNF (2009) How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychological Bulletin135(6): 943–973.
35.
SchwartzLMWoloshinSBlackWCWelchHG (1997) The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Annals of Internal Medicine127(11): 966–972.
36.
SchwartzLMWoloshinSWelchHG (2009) Using a drug facts box to communicate drug benefits and harms. Annals of Internal Medicine150(8): 516–527.
37.
ShroutPEBolgerN (2002) Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods7(4): 422–445.
38.
SlovicP (2007) “If I look at the mass I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making2(2): 79–95.
39.
SlovicPFinucaneMPetersEMacGregorDG (2002) Rational actors or rational fools: Implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics. Journal of Socio-Economics31(4): 329–342.
40.
SlovicPFinucaneMPetersEMacGregorDG (2004) Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis24(2): 311–322.
41.
SmallDALoewensteinGSlovicP (2007) Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes102: 143–153.
42.
SwinyardWR (1998) Shopping mall customer values: The national mall shopper and the list of values. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services5(3): 167–172.
43.
ThalerRHSunsteinCR (2003) Libertarian paternalism. The American Economic Review93(2): 175–179.
44.
ThalerRHSunsteinCR (2009) Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New York: Penguin.
45.
TrumboC (1996) Constructing climate change: Claims and frames in US news coverage of an environmental issue. Public Understanding of Science5(3): 269–283.
46.
ViswanathanMChildersTL (1996) Processing of numerical and verbal product information. Journal of Consumer Psychology5(4): 359–385.
47.
WeingartPEngelsAPansegrauP (2000) Risks of communication: Discourses on climate change in science, politics, and the mass media. Public Understanding of Science9(3): 261–283.
48.
WellerJADieckmannNFTuslerMMertzCKBurnsWJPetersE (2012) Development and testing of an abbreviated numeracy scale: A Rasch analysis approach. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, doi: 10.1002/bdm.1751
49.
YalchRFElmore-YalchR (1984) The effect of numbers on the route to persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research11(1): 522–527.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
