ERIC Number: EJ1474136
Record Type: Journal
Publication Date: 2025-Dec
Pages: 15
Abstractor: As Provided
ISBN: N/A
ISSN: N/A
EISSN: EISSN-2365-7464
Available Date: 2025-06-15
Numerate People Are Less Likely to Be Biased by Regular Science Reporting: The Critical Roles of Scientific Reasoning and Causal Misunderstanding
Olivia D. Perrin1; Jinhyo Cho1,2; Edward T. Cokely1; Jinan N. Allan3; Adam Feltz1; Rocio Garcia-Retamero4
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, v10 Article 32 2025
Numerate people tend to make more informed judgments and decisions because they are more risk literate (i.e., better able to evaluate and understand risk). Do numeracy skills also help people understand regular science reporting from mainstream news sources? To address this question, we investigated responses to regular science reports (e.g., excerpts from "CNN Health"), testing a cognitive model linking numeracy, scientific reasoning, judgment biases, and causal theory errors (i.e., interpreting correlational information as causal). In Study 1 (n = 200), structural equation modeling indicated that more numerate people were less likely to exhibit judgment biases because they were better at scientific reasoning, which helped them avoid causal misinterpretations. Study 2 (n = 342) cross-validated findings from Study 1, indicating that the link between numeracy and scientific reasoning was also associated with improved cognitive self-assessment (e.g., reduced overconfidence on comprehension judgments). Results indicate that more numerate people may generally be less likely to confuse correlation and causation in regular science reporting. Results also suggest that numerate people are more likely to have acquired scientific reasoning skills that more generally support risk literacy and knowledge acquisition, consistent with Skilled Decision Theory. Discussion focuses on implications for risk literacy research, and includes a Risk Literacy Difficulty Analysis indicating that more than half of the USA adult population may be likely to misunderstand common types of regular science reports.
Descriptors: Numeracy, Critical Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, Bias, Risk, Risk Assessment, Scientific Literacy, News Reporting, Sciences, Misconceptions, Causal Models, Correlation, Undergraduate Students, Science Process Skills
Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Publication Type: Journal Articles; Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education; Postsecondary Education
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A
Identifiers - Location: Oklahoma
Grant or Contract Numbers: N/A
Data File: URL: https://osf.io/pyj9t/
Author Affiliations: 1The University of Oklahoma, Department of Psychology, Norman, USA; 2University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA; 3Clemson University, Clemson, USA; 4University of Granada, Granada, Spain