IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v39y2019i3p183-195.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using the Short Graph Literacy Scale to Predict Precursors of Health Behavior Change

Author

Listed:
  • Yasmina Okan

    (Centre for Decision Research, Leeds University Business School, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK)

  • Eva Janssen

    (Department of Work and Social Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands)

  • Mirta Galesic

    (Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM, USA
    Harding Center for Risk Literacy, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany)

  • Erika A. Waters

    (Washington University School of Medicine, Division of Public Health Sciences, Saint Louis, MO, USA)

Abstract

Background. Visual displays can facilitate risk communication and promote better health choices. Their effectiveness in improving risk comprehension is influenced by graph literacy. However, the construct of graph literacy is still insufficiently understood, partially because existing objective measures of graph literacy are either too difficult or too long. Objectives. We constructed a new 4-item Short Graph Literacy (SGL) scale and examined how SGL scores relate to key cognitive, affective, and conative precursors of health behavior change described in common health behavior theories. Methods. We performed secondary analyses to adapt the SGL scale from an existing 13-item scale. The initial construction was based on data collected in a laboratory setting in Germany ( n = 51). The scale was then validated using data from nationally representative samples in Germany ( n = 495) and the United States ( n = 492). To examine how SGL scores relate to precursors of health behavior change, we performed secondary analyses of a third study involving a nationwide US sample with 47% participants belonging to racial/ethnic minorities and 46% with limited formal education ( n = 835). Results. Graph literacy was significantly associated with cognitive precursors in theoretically expected ways (e.g., positive associations with risk comprehension and response efficacy and a negative association with cognitive risk perception). Patterns for affective precursors generally mirrored those for cognitive precursors, although numeracy was a stronger predictor than graph literacy for some affective factors (e.g., feelings of risk). Graph literacy had predictive value for most cognitive and affective precursors beyond numeracy. In addition, graph literacy (but not numeracy) predicted key conative precursors such as defensive processing. Conclusions. Our data suggest that the SGL scale is a fast and psychometrically valid method for measuring objective graph literacy. Our findings also highlight the theoretical and practical relevance of graph literacy.

Suggested Citation

  • Yasmina Okan & Eva Janssen & Mirta Galesic & Erika A. Waters, 2019. "Using the Short Graph Literacy Scale to Predict Precursors of Health Behavior Change," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(3), pages 183-195, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:3:p:183-195
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19829728
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X19829728
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X19829728?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:3:p:263-274 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. William J. Burns & Ellen Peters & Paul Slovic, 2012. "Risk Perception and the Economic Crisis: A Longitudinal Study of the Trajectory of Perceived Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 659-677, April.
    3. Stone, Eric R. & Sieck, Winston R. & Bull, Benita E. & Frank Yates, J. & Parks, Stephanie C. & Rush, Carolyn J., 2003. "Foreground:background salience: Explaining the effects of graphical displays on risk avoidance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 19-36, January.
    4. Nathan F. Dieckmann & Paul Slovic & Ellen M. Peters, 2009. "The Use of Narrative Evidence and Explicit Likelihood by Decisionmakers Varying in Numeracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(10), pages 1473-1488, October.
    5. Christina Kreuzmair & Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller, 2016. "High Numerates Count Icons and Low Numerates Process Large Areas in Pictographs: Results of an Eye‐Tracking Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1599-1614, August.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:1:p:25-47 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Teigen, Karl Halvor & Juanchich, Marie & Løhre, Erik, 2022. "What is a “likely” amount? Representative (modal) values are considered likely even when their probabilities are low," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    2. Erika A. Waters & Jennifer M. Taber & Nicole Ackermann & Julia Maki & Amy M. McQueen & Laura D. Scherer, 2023. "Testing Explanations for Skepticism of Personalized Risk Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(4), pages 430-444, May.
    3. A. Kause & W. Bruine de Bruin & J. Persson & H. Thorén & L. Olsson & A. Wallin & S. Dessai & N. Vareman, 2022. "Confidence levels and likelihood terms in IPCC reports: a survey of experts from different scientific disciplines," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 173(1), pages 1-18, July.
    4. Marie-Anne Durand & Renata W Yen & James O’Malley & Glyn Elwyn & Julien Mancini, 2020. "Graph literacy matters: Examining the association between graph literacy, health literacy, and numeracy in a Medicaid eligible population," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-14, November.
    5. Lyndal J. Trevena & Carissa Bonner & Yasmina Okan & Ellen Peters & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Paul K. J. Han & Elissa Ozanne & Danielle Timmermans & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2021. "Current Challenges When Using Numbers in Patient Decision Aids: Advanced Concepts," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 834-847, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lyndal J. Trevena & Carissa Bonner & Yasmina Okan & Ellen Peters & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Paul K. J. Han & Elissa Ozanne & Danielle Timmermans & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2021. "Current Challenges When Using Numbers in Patient Decision Aids: Advanced Concepts," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 834-847, October.
    2. Shoots-Reinhard, Brittany & Goodwin, Raleigh & Bjälkebring, Pär & Markowitz, David M. & Silverstein, Michael C. & Peters, Ellen, 2021. "Ability-related political polarization in the COVID-19 pandemic," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    3. Wang, Xunxiao & Wu, Chongfeng, 2018. "Asymmetric volatility spillovers between crude oil and international financial markets," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 592-604.
    4. Reynolds, J.P. & Pilling, M. & Marteau, T.M., 2018. "Communicating quantitative evidence of policy effectiveness and support for the policy: Three experimental studies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 1-12.
    5. Paul K. J. Han & William M. P. Klein & Tom Lehman & Bill Killam & Holly Massett & Andrew N. Freedman, 2011. "Communication of Uncertainty Regarding Individualized Cancer Risk Estimates," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(2), pages 354-366, March.
    6. Kim, Yeolib & Kim, Seung Hyun & Peterson, Robert A. & Choi, Jeonghye, 2023. "Privacy concern and its consequences: A meta-analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    7. Branden B. Johnson & Adam M. Finkel, 2016. "Public Perceptions of Regulatory Costs, Their Uncertainty and Interindividual Distribution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1148-1170, June.
    8. Garcia-Retamero, Rocio & Hoffrage, Ulrich, 2013. "Visual representation of statistical information improves diagnostic inferences in doctors and their patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 27-33.
    9. Yaniv Hanoch & Jonathan Rolison & Alexandra M. Freund, 2019. "Reaping the Benefits and Avoiding the Risks: Unrealistic Optimism in the Health Domain," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 792-804, April.
    10. Xie, Guangming & Lü, Kevin & Gupta, Suraksha & Jiang, Yushi & Shi, Li, 2021. "How Dispersive Opinions Affect Consumer Decisions: Endowment Effect Guides Attributional Inferences," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 97(4), pages 621-638.
    11. Friedrich, James & Lucas, Gale & Hodell, Emily, 2005. "Proportional reasoning, framing effects, and affirmative action: Is six of one really half a dozen of another in university admissions?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 195-215, November.
    12. Takyi, Paul Owusu & Bentum-Ennin, Isaac, 2021. "The impact of COVID-19 on stock market performance in Africa: A Bayesian structural time series approach," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    13. Carmen Keller & Alex Junghans, 2017. "Does Guiding Toward Task-Relevant Information Help Improve Graph Processing and Graph Comprehension of Individuals with Low or High Numeracy? An Eye-Tracker Experiment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(8), pages 942-954, November.
    14. BenSaïda, Ahmed, 2019. "Good and bad volatility spillovers: An asymmetric connectedness," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 78-95.
    15. Victoria A. Shaffer & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2013. "All Stories Are Not Alike," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 4-13, January.
    16. Pattanaporn Chatjuthamard & Pavitra Jindahra & Pattarake Sarajoti & Sirimon Treepongkaruna, 2021. "The effect of COVID‐19 on the global stock market," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(3), pages 4923-4953, September.
    17. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Annika Wallin & Andrew M. Parker & JoNell Strough & Janel Hanmer, 2017. "Effects of Anti- Versus Pro-Vaccine Narratives on Responses by Recipients Varying in Numeracy: A Cross-sectional Survey-Based Experiment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(8), pages 860-870, November.
    18. Paloma Escamilla-Fajardo & Juan M. Núñez-Pomar & Ferran Calabuig-Moreno & Ana M. Gómez-Tafalla, 2020. "Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Sports Entrepreneurship," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-12, October.
    19. Schlosser, Ann E., 2018. "What are my chances? An imagery versus discursive processing approach to understanding ratio-bias effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 112-124.
    20. Ian G. J. Dawson, 2018. "Assessing the Effects of Information About Global Population Growth on Risk Perceptions and Support for Mitigation and Prevention Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2222-2241, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:3:p:183-195. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.