Search for: All records

Whether to undergo genome sequencing in a clinical or research context is generally a voluntary choice. Individuals are often motivated to learn genomic information even when clinical utility—the possibility that the test could inform medical recommendations or health outcomes—is low or absent. Motivations to seek one's genomic information can be cognitive, affective, social, or mixed (e.g., cognitive and affective) in nature. These motivations are based on the perceived value of the information, specifically, itsclinicalutility andpersonalutility. We suggest that motivations to learn genomic information are no different from motivations to learn other types of personal information, including one's health status and disease risk. Here, we review behavioral science relevant to motivations that may drive engagement with genome sequencing, both in the presence of varying degrees of clinical utility and in the absence of clinical utility. Specifically, we elucidate 10 motivations that are expected to underlie decisions to undergo genome sequencing. Recognizing these motivations to learn genomic information will guide future research and ultimately help clinicians to facilitate informed decision making among individuals as genome sequencing becomes increasingly available.

 

Numeracy—the ability to understand and use numeric information—is linked to good decision-making. Several problems exist with current numeracy measures, however. Depending on the participant sample, some existing measures are too easy or too hard; also, established measures often contain items well-known to participants. The current article aimed to develop new numeric understanding measures (NUMs) including a 1-item (1-NUM), 4-item (4-NUM), and 4-item adaptive measure (A-NUM). In a calibration study, 2 participant samples (n = 226 and 264 from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk [MTurk]) each responded to half of 84 novel numeracy items. We calibrated items using 2-parameter logistic item response theory (IRT) models. Based on item parameters, we developed the 3 new numeracy measures. In a subsequent validation study, 600 MTurk participants completed the new numeracy measures, the adaptive Berlin Numeracy Test, and the Weller Rasch-Based Numeracy Test, in randomized order. To establish predictive and convergent validities, participants also completed judgment and decision tasks, Raven’s progressive matrices, a vocabulary test, and demographics. Confirmatory factor analyses suggested that the 1-NUM, 4-NUM, and A-NUM load onto the same factor as existing measures. The NUM scales also showed similar association patterns to subjective numeracy and cognitive ability measures as established measures. Finally, they effectively predicted classic numeracy effects. In fact, based on power analyses, the A-NUM and 4-NUM appeared to confer more power to detect effects than existing measures. Thus, using IRT, we developed 3 brief numeracy measures, using novel items and without sacrificing construct scope. The measures can be downloaded as Qualtrics files (https://osf.io/pcegz/).

 

Driving evaluations aim to ensure adequate skills; however, feedback beyond pass/fail is needed for improvement. Therefore, the goal of this study was to inform driving feedback report design to ensure ease of use and understandability while motivating improvements. Participants ages 18–25 years (n = 521) were recruited from CloudResearch Prime Panels to rate one of nine report design conditions with various combinations of five key features: performance summary presence, action plan (AP) length, AP order, AP grading system, and peer comparison presence; they then completed questionnaires. Participants were more motivated to improve when a summary was present (p = 0.02); they rated reports easier to use if they had a long AP (p = 0.01), a short AP paired with a summary (p = 0.007), or an AP with a number grade (p = 0.016); and they rated reports easier to understand if they had a short AP (p = 0.002) or an AP ordered by worst-to-best performance (p = 0.05). These results suggest that feedback reports designed with a performance summary and short, targeted action plan starting with the biggest area for improvement are likely to motivate action to improve driving skills while being easy to use and understand. Future research should evaluate the effect of such a redesigned report on driving outcomes among young drivers.

 

Four studies demonstrate that the public’s understanding of government budgetary expenditures is hampered by difficulty in representing large numerical magnitudes. Despite orders of magnitude difference between millions and billions, study participants struggle with the budgetary magnitudes of government programs. When numerical values are rescaled as smaller magnitudes (in the thousands or lower), lay understanding improves, as indicated by greater sensitivity to numerical ratios and more accurate rank ordering of expenses. A robust benefit of numerical rescaling is demonstrated across a variety of experimental designs, including policy relevant choices and incentive-compatible accuracy measures. This improved sensitivity ultimately impacts funding choices and public perception of respective budgets, indicating the importance of numerical cognition for good citizenship. 

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.