The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making.
Open accessAbstract
We review the growing literature on health numeracy, the ability to understand and use numerical information, and its relation to cognition, health behaviors, and medical outcomes. Despite the surfeit of health information from commercial and noncommercial sources, national and international surveys show that many people lack basic numerical skills that are essential to maintain their health and make informed medical decisions. Low numeracy distorts perceptions of risks and benefits of screening, reduces medication compliance, impedes access to treatments, impairs risk communication (limiting prevention efforts among the most vulnerable), and, based on the scant research conducted on outcomes, appears to adversely affect medical outcomes. Low numeracy is also associated with greater susceptibility to extraneous factors (i.e., factors that do not change the objective numerical information). That is, low numeracy increases susceptibility to effects of mood or how information is presented (e.g., as frequencies vs. percentages) and to biases in judgment and decision making (e.g., framing and ratio bias effects). Much of this research is not grounded in empirically supported theories of numeracy or mathematical cognition, which are crucial for designing evidence-based policies and interventions that are effective in reducing risk and improving medical decision making. To address this gap, we outline four theoretical approaches (psychophysical, computational, standard dual-process, and fuzzy trace theory), review their implications for numeracy, and point to avenues for future research.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
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
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
Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion
Committee on Health Literacy, Board on Neuroscience and Behavioral Health, & Institute of Medicine (2004) · doi:10.17226/10883 · Cited by 3,444
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
Flawed Self-Assessment: Implications for Health, Education, and the Workplace
Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00018.x · Cited by 1,865
Cosmides, L. (1996) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(95)00664-8 · Cited by 1,293
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 · cited 2×
“Notably, however, the data on the relationship between risk perceptions and outcomes have not always been consistent (see Mills et al., 2008; Reyna & Farley, 2006).”
Self-citationPeters, E., Västfjäll, D., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Mazzocco, K., & Dickert, S. (2006) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01720.x · Cited by 1,180
Measuring Numeracy without a Math Test: Development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale
Fagerlin, A., Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., Ubel, P. A., Jankovic, A., Derry, H. A., & Smith, D. M. (2007) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x07304449 · Cited by 960
Cited by
Risk perceptions and health behavior
Ferrer, R. A., & Klein, W. M. (2015) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.03.012 · Cited by 1,034
Consequences of Age-Related Cognitive Declines
Salthouse, T. (2012) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100328 · Cited by 818
Dunning, D. (2011) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-385522-0.00005-6 · Cited by 806
Diviani, N., van den Putte, B., Giani, S., & van Weert, J. C. (2015) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.4018 · Cited by 638
Trevena, L. J., Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., Edwards, A., Gaissmaier, W., Galesic, M., Han, P. K., King, J., Lawson, M. L., Linder, S. K., Lipkus, I., et al. (2013) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/1472-6947-13-s2-s7 · Cited by 538
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Reyna, V. F., Nelson, W. L., Han, P. K., & Dieckmann, N. F.
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 2009
- Volume
- 135
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 943-973
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- OpenAlex
- W2132183026
- Cited by
- 1,168
- References
- 18
- FWCI
- 83.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/a0017327
- The paper
- Reyna, V. F., Nelson, W. L., Han, P. K., & Dieckmann, N. F. (2009). How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017327
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.