Search for: All records

ObjectivePatients have a poor understanding of outcomes related to total knee replacement (TKR) surgery, with most patients underestimating the potential benefits and overestimating the risk of complications. In this study, we sought to compare the impacts of descriptive information alone or in combination with an icon array, experience condition (images), or spinner on participants’ preference forTKR. MethodsA total of 648 members of an online arthritis network were randomized to 1 of 4 outcome presentation formats: numeric only, numeric with an icon array, numeric with a set of 50 images, or numeric with a functional spinner. Preferences forTKRwere measured before and immediately after viewing the outcome information using an 11‐point numeric rating scale. Knowledge was assessed by asking participants to report the frequency of each outcome. ResultsParticipants randomized to the icon array, images, and spinner had stronger preferences forTKR(after controlling for baseline preferences) compared to those viewing the numeric only format (P< 0.05 for all mean differences). Knowledge scores were highest in participants randomized to the icon array; however, knowledge did not mediate the association between format and change in preference forTKR. ConclusionDecision support at the point‐of‐care is being increasingly recognized as a vital component of care. Our findings suggest that adding graphic information to descriptive statistics strengthens preferences forTKR. Although experience formats using images may be too complex to use in clinical practice, icon arrays and spinners may be a viable and easily adaptable decision aid to support communication of probabilistic information. 

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. 

Communities often unite during a crisis, though some cope by ascribing blame or stigmas to those who might be linked to distressing life events. In a preregistered two-wave survey, we evaluated the dehumanization of Asians and Asian Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our first wave (March 26–April 2, 2020; N = 917) revealed dehumanization was prevalent, between 6.1% and 39% of our sample depending on measurement. Compared to non-dehumanizers, people who dehumanized also perceived the virus as less risky to human health and caused less severe consequences for infected people. They were more likely to be ideologically Conservative and believe in conspiracy theories about the virus. We largely replicated the results 1 month later in our second wave (May 6–May 13, 2020; N = 723). Together, many Americans dehumanize Asians and Asian Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic with related perceptions that the virus is less problematic. Implications and applications for dehumanization theory are discussed. 

Although inequality in the US has increased since the 1960s, several studies show that Americans underestimate it. Reasons include overreliance on one’s local perspective and ideologically-motivated cognition. We propose a novel mechanism to account for the misperceptions of income inequality. We hypothesize that compared to those who feel less autonomy, the people who believe they are autonomous and have control over their lives also believe that (1) income inequality is lower and (2) income inequality is more acceptable. Using a representative sample of 3,427 Americans, we find evidence to support these hypotheses. 

Aim: Research regarding decisions patients make about total knee arthroplasty, apart from having the procedure or not, are limited. Understanding patient decision making and related information needs is essential for shared decision making. Methods: Focus groups with an online community-based sample identified decisions about total knee arthroplasty beyond the decision to have the surgery itself. An online survey was used to determine relative importance of five major decisions and evaluate related information available. Results: Patients did not feel they have enough information to make important decisions of surgeon, device type, surgical approach, facility, or timing, for their total knee arthroplasty. Conclusion: Although further research is needed to generalize these findings, physicians should consider these questions during shared decision making with patients considering total knee arthroplasty. 

Peters, E. (2020). Innumeracy in the Wild: Misunderstanding and Misusing Numbers . (New York, NY: Oxford University Press) 315 pp. ISBN 978-0190861094 This piece briefly introduces and excerpts Innumeracy in the Wild: Misunderstanding and Misusing Numbers , written by Ellen Peters and published by Oxford University Press. Through a state-of-art review of the literature, the book explains how numeric ability supports the quality of the decisions people make and the life outcomes they experience. It presents three ways that people can be good or bad with numbers and how each of these numeric competencies matter to decision making.