Numeracy, Ratio Bias, and Denominator Neglect in Judgments of Risk and Probability
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Humans in general suffer from a variety of cognitive biases, some of which hinder our understanding of uncertainty.
“research shows that humans in general suffer from a variety of cognitive biases, some of which hinder our understanding of uncertainty [60,107,115].”
From Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty (2021) · cites this paper as [107]
People perceive risk probabilities represented in the frequency format as showing higher risk than those represented in the percentage format.
“people do seem to perceive risk probabilities represented in the frequency format as showing higher risk than those represented in the percentage format [107].”
From Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty (2021) · cites this paper as [107]
Cites
A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality.
Kahneman, D. (2003) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.58.9.697 · Cited by 5,540 · see citing works
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116 · Cited by 5,359 · see citing works
Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious
Epstein, S. (1994) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.49.8.709 · Cited by 2,883 · see citing works
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197 · Cited by 2,517 · see citing works
Reyna, V. F., & Farley, F. (2006) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00026.x · Cited by 1,244 · see citing works
Self-citationMeasuring psychological uncertainty: Verbal versus numeric methods.
Windschitl, P. D., & Wells, G. L. (1996) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied · doi:10.1037/1076-898x.2.4.343 · Cited by 326 · see citing works
Memory, Development, and Rationality: An Integrative Theory of Judgment and Decision Making
Reyna, V. F., Lloyd, F. J., & Brainerd, C. J. (2003) · Emerging Perspectives on Judgment and Decision Research · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609978.009 · Cited by 186 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks
Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2011) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0104-1 · Cited by 1,047 · see citing works
A theory of medical decision making and health: fuzzy trace theory
Reyna, V. F. (2008) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x08327066 · Cited by 602 · see citing works
Self-citationWest, R. F., Toplak, M. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2008) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0012842 · Cited by 416 · see citing works
Lai, V., & Tan, C. (2019) · Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3287560.3287590 · Cited by 377 · see citing works
How transparency modulates trust in artificial intelligence
Zerilli, J., Bhatt, U., & Weller, A. (2022) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2022.100455 · Cited by 257 · see citing works
Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2014) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0034910 · Cited by 170 · see citing works
Misunderstanding the harms of online misinformation
Budak, C., Nyhan, B., Rothschild, D. M., Thorson, E., & Watts, D. J. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07417-w · Cited by 156 · see citing works
What can AI do for me?: evaluating machine learning interpretations in cooperative play
Feng, S., & Boyd-Graber, J. (2019) · Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3301275.3302265 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Development of risky decision making: Fuzzy-trace theory and neurobiological perspectives
Reyna, V. F., Wilhelms, E. A., McCormick, M. J., & Weldon, R. B. (2015) · Child Development Perspectives · doi:10.1111/cdep.12117 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Self-citationXu, Z., Song, T., & Lee, Y.-C. (2025) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2025.103455 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
- Authors
- Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J.
- Affiliations
- Cornell University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Reyna, Valerie F.
- Venue
- Learning and Individual Differences
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2008-01
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 89-107
- ISSN
- 1041-6080 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2005339748
- Cited by
- 481
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 30
- FWCI
- 10.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Learning and Individual Differences (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Keywords
- numeracy, ratio bias, probability judgment, risk judgment, frequency bias, fuzzy-trace theory, dual-process models, health decision-making, risk communication
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
