Numbers are better than words

Nakao, Michael A.; Axelrod, Seymour

doi:10.1016/0002-9343(83)90819-7

Cited by 139 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In one study, physicians preferred to use verbal expressions of probability, while laypersons found numbers more helpful [124]. Some researchers have suggested that qualitative expressions of probability could be systematically codified for use in the clinical encounter [125, 126], while others are emphatic that they should be eliminated entirely in the medical context [127]. Mapes [128] observed that physicians’ interpretations of probability expressions depended on the therapeutic context.…”

Section: Future Research In Health Numeracymentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Implications of Numeracy: Theory and Practice

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Low numeracy is pervasive and constrains informed patient choice, reduces medication compliance, limits access to treatments, impairs risk communication, and affects medical outcomes; therefore, it is incumbent upon providers to minimize its adverse effects. Purpose We provide an overview of research on health numeracy and discuss its implications in clinical contexts. Conclusions Low numeracy cannot be reliably inferred on the basis of patients’ education, intelligence, or other observable characteristics. Objective and subjective assessments of numeracy are available in short forms and could be used to tailor health communication. Low scorers on these assessments are subject to cognitive biases, irrelevant cues (e.g., mood), and sharper temporal discounting. Because prevention of the leading causes of death (e.g., cancer and cardiovascular disease) depends on taking action now to prevent serious consequences later, those low in numeracy are likely to require more explanation of risk to engage in prevention behaviors. Visual displays can be used to make numerical relations more transparent, and different types of displays have different effects (e.g., greater risk avoidance). Ironically, superior quantitative processing seems to be achieved by focusing on qualitative gist and affective meaning, which has important implications for empowering patients to take advantage of the evidence in evidence-based medicine.

show abstract

Section: Future Research In Health Numeracymentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Implications of Numeracy: Theory and Practice

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although there is a long and rich tradition exploring the manner in which individuals use and respond to qualitative probability expressions and quantitative probability values (Toogood, 1980; Beyth-Marom, 1982; Nakao and Axelrod, 1983; Budescu and Wallsten, 1985; Mosteller and Youtz, 1990), the literature is silent in regards to the impact of using Arabic numerals or equivalent words in natural frequency expressions (e.g., 5 of 5 vs. all of 5). The finding in Experiment 3 that the impact of some natural frequency expressions was influenced by the manner in which the quantity of the subcategory was described (Arabic numeral vs. word) was unexpected and difficult to integrate with the literature on natural frequencies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As Feynman (1967) has pointed out, however, mathematical equivalence is not the same as psychological equivalence. Somewhat related to this issue, there is extensive research exploring the unique aspects of qualitative probability expressions and quantitative probability values (Toogood, 1980; Beyth-Marom, 1982; Nakao and Axelrod, 1983; Budescu and Wallsten, 1985; Mosteller and Youtz, 1990). Qualitative probability expressions include such verbal expressions as mostly, very likely, exceptionally unlikely, and rare while quantitative probability values include such numeric expressions as 90% likelihood and 1% likelihood.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Replication Rate, Framing, and Format Affect Attitudes and Decisions about Science Claims

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A series of five experiments examined how the evaluation of a scientific finding was influenced by information about the number of studies that had successfully replicated the initial finding. The experiments also tested the impact of frame (negative, positive) and numeric format (percentage, natural frequency) on the evaluation of scientific findings. In Experiments 1 through 4, an attitude difference score served as the dependent measure, while a measure of choice served as the dependent measure in Experiment 5. Results from a diverse sample of 188 non-institutionalized U.S. adults (Experiment 2) and 730 undergraduate college students (Experiments 1, 3, and 4) indicated that attitudes became more positive as the replication rate increased and attitudes were more positive when the replication information was framed positively. The results also indicate that the manner in which replication rate was framed had a greater impact on attitude than the replication rate itself. The large effect for frame was attenuated somewhat when information about replication was presented in the form of natural frequencies rather than percentages. A fifth study employing 662 undergraduate college students in a task in which choice served as the dependent measure confirmed the framing effect and replicated the replication rate effect in the positive frame condition, but provided no evidence that the use of natural frequencies diminished the effect.

show abstract

“…The upward trend over the past decade in the quantity of BMJ citations with numbers may reflect an increasing awareness of the importance and power of numeracy in medicine 5. Medical authors often feel the need to be more exact.…”

Section: Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%