Display options
Cite
Liberali JM, Reyna VF, Furlan S, et al. Individual Differences in Numeracy and Cognitive Reflection, with Implications for Biases and Fallacies in Probability Judgment. J Behav Decis Mak. 2012;25(4):361-381doi: 10.1002/bdm.752.
Liberali, J. M., Reyna, V. F., Furlan, S., Stein, L. M., & Pardo, S. T. (2012). Individual Differences in Numeracy and Cognitive Reflection, with Implications for Biases and Fallacies in Probability Judgment. Journal of behavioral decision making, 25(4), 361-381. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.752
Liberali, Jordana M, et al. "Individual Differences in Numeracy and Cognitive Reflection, with Implications for Biases and Fallacies in Probability Judgment." Journal of behavioral decision making vol. 25,4 (2012): 361-381. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.752
Liberali JM, Reyna VF, Furlan S, Stein LM, Pardo ST. Individual Differences in Numeracy and Cognitive Reflection, with Implications for Biases and Fallacies in Probability Judgment. J Behav Decis Mak. 2012 Oct;25(4):361-381. doi: 10.1002/bdm.752. PMID: 23878413; PMCID: PMC3716015.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Behav Decis Mak. 2012 Oct;25(4):361-381. doi: 10.1002/bdm.752.

Individual Differences in Numeracy and Cognitive Reflection, with Implications for Biases and Fallacies in Probability Judgment.

Journal of behavioral decision making

Jordana M Liberali, Valerie F Reyna, Sarah Furlan, Lilian M Stein, Seth T Pardo

Affiliations

  1. Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands ; Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.

PMID: 23878413 PMCID: PMC3716015 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.752

Abstract

Despite evidence that individual differences in numeracy affect judgment and decision making, the precise mechanisms underlying how such differences produce biases and fallacies remain unclear. Numeracy scales have been developed without sufficient theoretical grounding, and their relation to other cognitive tasks that assess numerical reasoning, such as the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT), has been debated. In studies conducted in Brazil and in the USA, we administered an objective Numeracy Scale (NS), Subjective Numeracy Scale (SNS), and the CRT to assess whether they measured similar constructs. The Rational-Experiential Inventory, inhibition (go/no-go task), and intelligence were also investigated. By examining factor solutions along with frequent errors for questions that loaded on each factor, we characterized different types of processing captured by different items on these scales. We also tested the predictive power of these factors to account for biases and fallacies in probability judgments. In the first study, 259 Brazilian undergraduates were tested on the conjunction and disjunction fallacies. In the second study, 190 American undergraduates responded to a ratio-bias task. Across the different samples, the results were remarkably similar. The results indicated that the CRT is not just another numeracy scale, that objective and subjective numeracy scales do not measure an identical construct, and that different aspects of numeracy predict different biases and fallacies. Dimensions of numeracy included computational skills such as multiplying, proportional reasoning, mindless or verbatim matching, metacognitive monitoring, and understanding the gist of relative magnitude, consistent with dual-process theories such as fuzzy-trace theory.

Keywords: cognitive reflection; conjunction fallacy; disjunction fallacy; fuzzy-trace theory; intelligence; numeracy; ratio bias

References

  1. Science. 1997 Feb 28;275(5304):1293-5 - PubMed
  2. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008 Apr;94(4):672-95 - PubMed
  3. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999 Jun;76(6):972-87 - PubMed
  4. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2004 Dec;5(3):69-106 - PubMed
  5. Psychol Sci. 2003 May;14(3):237-43 - PubMed
  6. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2011 Sep;37(5):1125-42 - PubMed
  7. Psychol Sci. 2006 May;17(5):407-13 - PubMed
  8. Behav Brain Sci. 2000 Oct;23(5):645-65; discussion 665-726 - PubMed
  9. Am J Health Behav. 2007 Sep-Oct;31 Suppl 1:S47-56 - PubMed
  10. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2006 Sep;7(1):1-44 - PubMed
  11. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2006 Sep;12(3):179-95 - PubMed
  12. Health Educ Behav. 2009 Dec;36(6):1065-81 - PubMed
  13. Annu Rev Psychol. 2009;60:53-85 - PubMed
  14. Med Decis Making. 2007 Sep-Oct;27(5):672-80 - PubMed
  15. Ann Behav Med. 2008 Jun;35(3):261-74 - PubMed
  16. J Abnorm Psychol. 1955 Sep;51(2):291-4 - PubMed
  17. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1992 Oct;63(4):534-44 - PubMed
  18. Psychol Bull. 2009 Nov;135(6):943-73 - PubMed
  19. Ann Intern Med. 1997 Dec 1;127(11):966-72 - PubMed
  20. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Oct;7(10):454-9 - PubMed
  21. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2009 Jul;4(4):379-83 - PubMed
  22. Science. 1974 Sep 27;185(4157):1124-31 - PubMed
  23. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996 Aug;71(2):390-405 - PubMed
  24. Neuroimage. 2002 Dec;17(4):1820-9 - PubMed
  25. Am Psychol. 1994 Aug;49(8):709-24 - PubMed
  26. Med Decis Making. 2008 Nov-Dec;28(6):850-65 - PubMed
  27. Am Psychol. 2003 Sep;58(9):697-720 - PubMed
  28. Med Decis Making. 2001 Jan-Feb;21(1):37-44 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support