An official website of the United States government
Objective There are many measures of health and/or financial literacy and/or numeracy, which vary widely in terms of length, content, and the extent to which numbers or math operations are involved. Although the literature is large, there is less considers what is known about math prediction and development, perhaps because the bulk of this literature is with adults. This is important because the literature on how math develops, what predicts it, and how to intervene with it, is very large (Cirino, 2022). To the extent that performance and prediction are similar, then information from the developmental literature of mathematics can be brought to bear with regard to health and financial numeracy. Here we assess math cognition variables (arithmetic concepts and number line estimation) alongside working memory, likely the most robust cognitive predictor of math, as well as sociodemographic covariates. We expect all predictors to relate to each type of outcome, though we expect reading to be more related to health and financial numeracy relative to symbolic math. Participants and Methods Participants were 238 young adults, diverse in language and race/ethnicity, enrolled in their first and entry-level college math class at either community college or university; approximately 30% were taking developmental coursework. For this study, participants were given three sets of analogous math problems: (a) pure symbolic; (b) health numeracy context; (c) financial numeracy context. Additional measures were of reading (KTEA-3 Reading Comprehension), math cognition (Arithmetic Concepts and Number Line Estimation), and complex span working memory (Symmetry Span and Reading Span). Correlations assessed relations, and multiple regression assessed prediction. Results All measures involving math correlated, though symbolic math less well than health and financial numeracy with one another. For symbolic math, math cognition and working memory together accounted for R2=56% variance, and all were unique predictors, with arithmetic concepts strongest (ηp2 = .19). For health numeracy, all predictors also accounted for R2=56% variance. Beyond symbolic math, math cognition and working memory were unique predictors (all p < .05); reading comprehension was not. The clearly strongest unique predictor was number line estimation (ηp2 = .06). For financial numeracy, all predictors accounted for R2=61% variance. Beyond symbolic math and reading comprehension, again math cognition and working memory were unique predictors (all p < .05), and again number line estimation was the strongest (ηp2 = .08). Results held with covariate control. Conclusions Math cognition and working memory are known important contributors to math skill. This study shows these to be equally important whether math is in a pure symbolic context, or a health and or financial context. This suggests that the utility of health and financial numeracy measures (and potentially the constructs themselves) needs to consider the underlying concomitants of math skill more generally, particularly as the extent to which numbers and/or specific math operations are used in such measures varies widely. Context is likely important, however, and future work will need to consider practical outcomes (e.g., risky health or financial behaviors and management) across a range of populations.
more »
« less
The causal impact of objective numeracy on judgments: Improving numeracy via symbolic and non-symbolic approximate arithmetic training yields more consistent risk judgments
Park and Brannon (2013, https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613482944) found that practicing non-symbolic approximate arithmetic increased performance on an objective numeracy task, specifically symbolic arithmetic. Manipulating objective numeracy would be useful for many researchers, particularly those who wish to investigate causal effects of objective numeracy on performance. Objective numeracy has been linked to performance in multiple areas, such as judgment-and-decision-making (JDM) competence, but most existing studies are correlational. Here, we expanded upon Park and Brannon’s method to experimentally manipulate objective numeracy and we investigated whether numeracy’s link with JDM performance was causal. Experimental participants drawn from a diverse internet sample trained on approximate-arithmetic tasks whereas active control participants trained on a spatial working-memory task. Numeracy training followed a 2 × 2 design: Experimental participants quickly estimated the sum of OR difference between presented numeric stimuli, using symbolic numbers (i.e., Arabic numbers) OR non-symbolic numeric stimuli (i.e., dot arrays). We partially replicated Park and Brannon’s findings: The numeracy training improved objective-numeracy performance more than control training, but this improvement was evidenced by performance on the Objective Numeracy Scale, not the symbolic arithmetic task. Subsequently, we found that experimental participants also perceived risks more consistently than active control participants, and this risk-consistency benefit was mediated by objective numeracy. These results provide the first known experimental evidence of a causal link between objective numeracy and the consistency of risk judgments.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2017651
- PAR ID:
- 10371736
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Numerical Cognition
- Volume:
- 7
- Issue:
- 3
- ISSN:
- 2363-8761
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 351 to 367
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
This study characterises a previously unstudied facet of a major causal model of math anxiety. The model posits that impaired “basic number abilities” can lead to math anxiety, but what constitutes a basic number ability remains underdefined. Previous work has raised the idea that our perceptual ability to represent quantities approximately without using symbols constitutes one of the basic number abilities. Indeed, several recent studies tested how participants with math anxiety estimate and compare non-symbolic quantities. However, little is known about how participants with math anxiety perform arithmetic operations (addition and subtraction) on non-symbolic quantities. This is an important question because poor arithmetic performance on symbolic numbers is one of the primary signatures of high math anxiety. To test the question, we recruited 92 participants and asked them to complete a math anxiety survey, two measures of working memory, a timed symbolic arithmetic test, and a non-symbolic “approximate arithmetic” task. We hypothesised that if impaired ability to perform operations was a potential causal factor to math anxiety, we should see relationships between math anxiety and both symbolic and approximate arithmetic. However, if math anxiety relates to precise or symbolic representation, only a relationship between math anxiety and symbolic arithmetic should appear. Our results show no relationship between math anxiety and the ability to perform operations with approximate quantities, suggesting that difficulties performing perceptually based arithmetic operations do not constitute a basic number ability linked to math anxiety.more » « less
-
BackgroundObjective 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. PurposeWe 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. ConclusionsThe 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. HighlightsResearch 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.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Background. Numeracy skills are important for medical decision making as lower numeracy is associated with misinterpreting statistical health risks. Math anxiety, characterized by negative emotions about numerical tasks, and lower subjective numeracy (i.e., self-assessments of numerical competence) are also associated with poor risk comprehension. Objective. To explore independent and mediated associations of math anxiety, numerical ability, and subjective numeracy with risk comprehension and to ascertain whether their associations are specific to the health domain. Methods. Objective numeracy was measured with a 14-item test. Math anxiety and subjective numeracy were assessed with self-report scales. Risk comprehension was measured with a 12-item test. In experiment 1, risk comprehension items were limited to scenarios in the health domain. In experiment 2, participants were randomly assigned to receive numerically equivalent risk comprehension items in either a health or nonhealth domain. Results. Linear regression analyses revealed that individuals with higher objective numeracy were more likely to respond correctly to the risk comprehension items, as were individuals with higher subjective numeracy. Higher math anxiety was associated with a lower likelihood of correct responding when controlling for objective numeracy but not when controlling for subjective numeracy. Mediation analyses indicated that math anxiety may undermine risk comprehension in 3 ways, including through 1) objective numeracy, 2) subjective numeracy, and 3) objective and subjective numeracy in serial, with subjective numeracy mediating the association between objective numeracy and risk comprehension. Findings did not differ by domain. Conclusions. Math anxiety, objective numeracy, and subjective numeracy are associated with risk comprehension through unique pathways. Education initiatives for improving health risk comprehension may be most effective if jointly aimed at tackling numerical ability as well as negative emotions and self-evaluations related to numeracy.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)People often laugh about being “no good at math.” Unrecognized, however, is that about one-third of American adults are likely too innumerate to operate effectively in financial and health environments. Two numeric competencies conceivably matter—objective numeracy (ability to “run the numbers” correctly; like literacy but with numbers) and numeric self-efficacy (confidence that provides engagement and persistence in numeric tasks). We reasoned, however, that attaining objective numeracy’s benefits should depend on numeric confidence. Specifically, among the more objectively numerate, having more numeric confidence (vs. less) should lead to better outcomes because they persist in numeric tasks and have the skills to support numeric success. Among the less objectively numerate, however, having more (vs. less) numeric confidence should hurt outcomes, as they also persist, but make unrecognized mistakes. Two studies were designed to test the generalizability of this hypothesized interaction. We report secondary analysis of financial outcomes in a diverse US dataset and primary analysis of disease activity among systemic lupus erythematosus patients. In both domains, best outcomes appeared to require numeric calculation skills and the persistence of numeric confidence. “Mismatched” individuals (high ability/low confidence or low ability/high confidence) experienced the worst outcomes. For example, among the most numerate patients, only 7% of the more numerically confident had predicted disease activity indicative of needing further treatment compared with 31% of high-numeracy/low-confidence patients and 44% of low-numeracy/high-confidence patients. Our work underscores that having 1 of these competencies (objective numeracy or numeric self-efficacy) does not guarantee superior outcomes.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.5964/jnc.6925
