目的:人们对统计信息的图形或数字表示的理解不同。然而,在决定选择或使用哪种表示时,评估这些技能通常是不可行的。这项研究调查了人们是否选择了他们更好理解的表征,这种选择是否可以提高对风险的理解,以及结果是否受参与者技能(图形识字和算术)的影响。
方法:在实验中,160名参与者使用数字或图形表示获得了有关止痛药的益处和副作用的信息。在“无选择”条件下,将代表随机分配给每位参与者.在“选择”条件下,参与者可以选择他们希望收到的代表。该研究评估了要点和逐字知识(即时理解和回忆),信息的可访问性,代表性的吸引力,以及图形识字和算术。
结果:在“选择”条件下,大多数(62.5%)选择图形格式,然而,选择图形或数字格式的人之间的图形素养或算术能力(年龄或性别)没有差异。而选择稍微增加了逐字知识,与随机分配相比,它没有提高要点或总体知识。然而,选择代表的参与者将代表评为更具吸引力,那些选择图表的人认为它们比那些没有选择的人更容易获得。
结论:样本由受过高等教育的本科生组成,其图形素养高于一般人群。就参与者的健康而言,这项任务无关紧要。
结论:当人们可以在表示之间进行选择时,他们无法更好地识别他们理解的内容,但在很大程度上基于代表对他们的吸引力。
结论:人们在理解统计信息的图形或数字表示方面存在系统性差异。然而,评估这些潜在的技能,以获得正确的代表给正确的人在实践中是不可行的。实现这一目标的一种简单而有效的方法可能是让人们自己在表示中进行选择。然而,我们的研究表明,与随机确定表征相比,允许参与者选择表征(数字v图形)并没有提高整体或要点知识,尽管它确实稍微提高了逐字知识。相反,参与者在很大程度上选择了他们认为更具吸引力的代表。最喜欢的图形表示,包括那些图形素养低的人。因此,重要的是开发图形表示,即使对于图形素养较低的人来说,不仅具有吸引力,而且还可以理解。
People differ in whether they understand graphical or numerical representations of statistical information better. However, assessing these skills is often not feasible when deciding which representation to select or use. This study investigates whether people choose the representation they understand better, whether this choice can improve risk comprehension, and whether results are influenced by participants\' skills (graph literacy and numeracy).
In an experiment, 160 participants received information about the benefits and side effects of painkillers using either a numerical or a graphical representation. In the \"no choice\" condition, the representation was randomly assigned to each participant. In the \"choice\" condition, participants could select the representation they would like to receive. The study assessed gist and verbatim knowledge (immediate comprehension and recall), accessibility of the information, attractiveness of the representation, as well as graph literacy and numeracy.
In the \"choice\" condition, most (62.5%) chose the graphical format, yet there was no difference in graph literacy or numeracy (nor age or gender) between people who chose the graphical or the numerical format. Whereas choice slightly increased verbatim knowledge, it did not improve gist or overall knowledge compared with random assignment. However, participants who chose a representation rated the representation as more attractive, and those who chose graphs rated them as more accessible than those without a choice.
The sample consisted of highly educated undergraduate students with higher graph literacy than the general population. The task was inconsequential for participants in terms of their health.
When people can choose between representations, they fail to identify what they comprehend better but largely base that choice on how attractive the representation is for them.
People differ systematically in whether they understand graphical or numerical representations of statistical information better. However, assessing these underlying skills to get the right representation to the right people is not feasible in practice. A simple and efficient method to achieve this could be to let people choose among representations themselves.However, our study showed that allowing participants to choose a representation (numerical v. graphical) did not improve overall or gist knowledge compared with determining the representation randomly, even though it did slightly improve verbatim knowledge.Rather, participants largely chose the representation they found more attractive. Most preferred the graphical representation, including those with low graph literacy.It would therefore be important to develop graphical representations that are not only attractive but also comprehensible even for people with low graph literacy.