skip to main content

Explore Research Products in the NSF-PAR

  • NSF Public Access
  • Search Results
  • Money matters (especially if you are good at math): Numeracy, verbal intelligence, education, and income in satisfaction judgments
Title: Money matters (especially if you are good at math): Numeracy, verbal intelligence, education, and income in satisfaction judgments
Objective numeracy, the ability to understand and use mathematical concepts, has been related to superior decisions and life outcomes. Unknown is whether it relates to greater satisfaction in life. We investigated numeracy’s relations with income satisfaction and overall life satisfaction in a diverse sample of 5,525 American adults. First, more numerate individuals had higher incomes; for every one point higher on the eight-item numeracy test, individuals reported $4,062 more in annual income, controlling for education and verbal intelligence. Combined, numeracy, education, and verbal intelligence explained 25% of the variance in income while Big-5 personality traits explained less than 4%. Further, the higher incomes associated with greater numeracy were related to more positive life evaluations (income and life satisfaction). Second, extant research also has indicated that the highly numerate compare numbers more than the less numerate. Consistent with numeracy-related income comparisons, numeracy moderated the relation between income and life evaluations, meaning that the same income was valued differently by those better and worse at math. Specifically, among those with lower incomes, the highly numerate were less satisfied than the less numerate; this effect reversed among those with higher incomes as if the highly numerate were aware of and made comparisons to others’ incomes. Further, no clear income satiation point was seen among those highest in numeracy, and satiation among the least numerate appeared to occur at a point below $50,000. Third, both education and verbal intelligence related to income evaluations in similar ways, and numeracy’s relations held when controlling for these other relations. Although causal claims cannot be made from cross-sectional data, these novel results indicate that numeracy may be an important factor underlying life evaluations and especially for evaluations concerning numbers such as incomes. Finally, this study adds to our understanding of education and intelligence effects in life satisfaction and happiness.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2017651
NSF-PAR ID:
10374049
Author(s) / Creator(s):
;
Editor(s):
Luciano, Michelle
Date Published:
Journal Name:
PLOS ONE
Volume:
16
Issue:
11
ISSN:
1932-6203
Page Range / eLocation ID:
e0259331
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ( , Journal of Behavioral Decision Making)
    Abstract

    Psychologists have convincingly demonstrated that preferences are not always stable and, instead, are often “constructed” based on information available in the judgment or decision context. In 4 studies with experts (accountants and actuaries in Studies 1 and 2, respectively) and a diverse lay population (Studies 3 and 4), the evidence was consistent with the highly numerate being more likely than the less numerate to construct their preferences by rating a numerically inferior bet as superior (i.e., the bets effect). Thus, the effect generalizes beyond a college student sample, and preference construction differs by numeracy. Contrary to prior thinking about preference construction, however, high expertise and high ability (rather than low) consistently related to the paradoxical phenomenon. Results across studies including Study 3's experimental modifications of the task supported the hypothesized number comparison process (and not a lack of expertise with monetary outcomes and probabilities or numeracy‐related differences in attention to numbers) as the effect's underlying cause. The bets effect was not attenuated by Study 4's instructions to think about what would be purchased with bet winnings. Task results combined with free‐response coding supported the notion that highly numerate participants have a systematic and persistent inclination for doing simple and complex number operations that drive their judgments (even after controlling for nonnumeric intelligence). Implications for 3 types of dual‐process theories are discussed. The results were inconsistent with default‐interventionist theories, consistent or unclear with respect to fuzzy trace theory, and consistent with interactive theories.

     
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ; ; ; ( , Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)
    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
  3. ; ; ( , Medical Decision Making)
    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
  4. ; ( , Risk Analysis)
    Abstract

    Fuzzy‐trace theory predicts that decisionmakers process numerical information about risk at multiple levels in parallel: the simplest level, nominal (categoricalsome‐none) gist, and at more fine‐grained levels, involving relative comparison (ordinalless‐moregist) and exact quantities (verbatim representations). However, little is known about how individual differences in these numerical representations relate to judgments and decisions, especially involving health tradeoffs and relative risks. To investigate these differences, we administered measures of categorical and ordinal gist representations of number, objective numeracy, and intelligence in two studies (Ns = 978 and 956). In both studies, categorical and ordinal gist representations of number predicted risk judgments and decisions beyond objective numeracy and intelligence. Participants with higher scores in categorical gist were more likely to choose options to avoid cancer recurrence risks; those who were higher in ordinal gist of numbers were more likely to discriminate relative risk of skin cancer; and those with higher scores in objective numeracy were more likely to choose options that were numerically superior overall in terms of relative risk of skin cancer and of genetic risks of breast cancer (e.g., lower numerical probability of cancer). Results support parallel‐processing models that assume multiple representations of numerical information about risk, which vary in precision, and illustrate how individual differences in numerical representations are relevant to tradeoffs and risk comparisons in health decisions. These representations cannot be reduced to one another and explain psychological variations in risk processing that go beyond low versus high levels of objective numeracy.

     
    more » « less
  5. ; ( , Journal of Behavioral Decision Making)
    Abstract

    Higher numeracy has been associated with decision biases in some numerical judgment‐and‐decision problems. According to fuzzy‐trace theory, understanding such paradoxes involves broadening the concept of numeracy to include processing the gist of numbers—their categorical and ordinal relations—in addition to objective (verbatim) knowledge about numbers. We assess multiple representations of gist, as well as numeracy, and use them to better understand and predict systematic paradoxes in judgment and decision‐making. In two samples (Ns = 978 and 957), we assessed categorical (some vs. none) and ordinal gist representations of numbers (higher vs. lower, as in relative magnitude judgment, estimation, approximation, and simple ratio comparison), objective numeracy, and a nonverbal, nonnumeric measure of fluid intelligence in predicting: (a) decision preferences exhibiting the Allais paradox and (b) attractiveness ratings of bets with and without a small loss in which the loss bet is rated higher than the objectively superior no‐loss bet. Categorical and ordinal gist tasks predicted unique variance in paradoxical decisions and judgments, beyond objective numeracy and intelligence. Whereas objective numeracy predicted choosing or rating according to literal numerical superiority, appreciating the categorical and ordinal gist of numbers was pivotal in predicting paradoxes. These results bring important paradoxes under the same explanatory umbrella, which assumes three types of representations of numbers—categorical gist, ordinal gist, and objective (verbatim)—that vary in their strength across individuals.

     
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email