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.
OkanYGarcia-RetameroRCokelyETMaldonadoA.Individual differences in graph literacy: overcoming denominator neglect in risk comprehension. J Behav Decis Making. 2012;25:390–401.
2.
WatersEAWeinsteinNDColditzGAEmmonsKM.Reducing aversion to side effects in preventive medical treatment decisions. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2007;13:11–21.
3.
Garcia-RetameroRCokelyET.Designing visual aids that promote risk literacy: a systematic review of health research and evidence-based design heuristics. Hum Factors. 2017;59:582–627.
4.
LipkusIM.Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of convening health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:695–713.
5.
TrevenaLJZikmund-FisherBJEdwardsAet al. Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers. BMC Med Inform Decis Making. 2013;13:S7.
6.
StoneERSieckWRBullBEYatesJFParksSCRushCJ.Foreground: background salience: explaining the effects of graphical displays on risk avoidance. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2003;90:19–36.
7.
GalesicMGarcia-RetameroR.Graph literacy: a cross-cultural comparison. Med Decis Making. 2011;31:444–57.
8.
GaissmaierWWegwarthOSkopecDMüllerASBroschinskiSPolitiMC.Numbers can be worth a thousand pictures: individual differences in understanding graphical and numerical representations of health-related information. Health Psychol. 2012;31:286–96.
9.
Garcia-RetameroRGalesicM.Who profits from visual aids: overcoming challenges in people’s understanding of risks. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70:1019–25.
10.
SharitJLisigurskiMAndradeADet al. The roles of health literacy, numeracy, and graph literacy on the usability of the VA’s personal health record by veterans. J Usability Stud. 2014;9:173–93.
11.
Garcia-RetameroRCokelyET.The influence of skills, message frame, and visual aids on prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. J Behav Decis Making. 2014;27:179–89.
12.
RuizJGAndradeADHogueCet al. The association of graph literacy with use of and skills using an online personal health record in outpatient veterans. J Health Commun. 2016;21(suppl 2):83–90.
13.
Garcia-RetameroRCokelyETGhazalSJoerisA.Measuring graph literacy without a test: a brief subjective assessment. Med Decis Making. 2016;36:854–67.
14.
OkanYGarcia-RetameroRGalesicMCokelyET.When higher bars are not larger quantities: on individual differences in the use of spatial information in graph comprehension. Spat Cogn Comput. 2012;12:1–25.
15.
OkanYGalesicMGarcia-RetameroR.How people with low and high graph literacy process health graphs: evidence from eye-tracking. J Behav Decis Making. 2016;29:271–94.
16.
DowdingDMerrillJAOnoratoNBarrónYRosatiRJRussellD.The impact of home care nurses’ numeracy and graph literacy on comprehension of visual display information: implications for dashboard design. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018;25:175-82.
17.
NayakJGHartzlerALMacleodLCIzardJPDalkinBMGoreJL.Relevance of graph literacy in the development of patient-centered communication tools. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99:448–54.
18.
Zikmund-FisherBJWittemanHODicksonMet al. Blocks, ovals, or people? Icon type affects risk perceptions and recall of pictographs. Med Decis Making. 2014;34:443–53.
19.
OkanYGarcia-RetameroRCokelyETMaldonadoA.Improving risk understanding across ability levels: encouraging active processing with dynamic icon arrays. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2015;21:178–94.
20.
SchwarzerR.Social-cognitive factors in changing health-related behaviors. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2001;10:47–51.
21.
WitteK.Putting the fear back into fear appeals: the extended parallel process model. Commun Monogr. 1992;59:329–349.
22.
HessRVisschersVHSiegristM.Risk communication with pictographs: the role of numeracy and graph processing. Judgm Decis Making. 2011;6:263–274.
23.
KreuzmairCSiegristMKellerC.High numerates count icons and low numerates process large areas in pictographs: results of an eye-tracking study. Risk Anal. 2016;36:1599–614.
24.
KramarskiBMevarechZR.Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: the effects of cooperative learning and metacognitive training. Am Educ Res J. 2003;40:281–310.
25.
ShahPFreedmanEG.Bar and line graph comprehension: an interaction of top-down and bottom-up processes. Top Cogn Sci. 2011;3:560–78.
26.
LiberaliJMReynaVFFurlanSSteinLMPardoST.Individual differences in numeracy and cognitive reflection, with implications for biases and fallacies in probability judgment. J Behav Decis Making. 2012;25:361–81.
27.
WatersEABiddleCKaphingstKAet al. Examining the interrelations among objective and subjective health literacy and numeracy and their associations with health knowledge. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33:1945–53.
28.
PetersEBjalkebringP.Multiple numeric competencies: when a number is not just a number. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2015;108:802.
29.
SchwartzLMWoloshinSBlackWCWelchHG.The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:966–972.
30.
JanssenERuiterRAWatersEA.Combining risk communication strategies to simultaneously convey the risks of four diseases associated with physical inactivity to socio-demographically diverse populations. J Behav Med. 2018;41:318–32.
31.
AgapitoDOom do VallePda Costa MendesJ.The cognitive-affective-conative model of destination image: a confirmatory analysis. J Travel Tour Mark. 2013;30:471–81.
32.
HilgardER.The trilogy of mind: cognition, affection, and conation. J Hist Behav Sci. 1980;16:107–17.
33.
Tait-McCutcheonSL.Self-efficacy in mathematics: affective, cognitive, and conative domains of functioning. In: GoosMBrownRMakarK, eds. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. Brisbane: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia 2008. p 507–13.
34.
BeckerMH.The Health Belief Model and Personal Health BehaviorHealth Educ Monogr. 1974;2:324–508.
35.
RogersRWPrentice-DunnS.Protection motivation theory. In: GochmanDS, ed. Handbook of Health Behavior Research I: Personal and Social Determinants. New York: Plenum; 1997. p. 113–32.
36.
WeinsteinND.What does it mean to understand a risk? Evaluating risk comprehension. JNCI Monogr. 1999;1999:15–20.
37.
BrennanEDurkinSJCotterTHarperTWakefieldMA.Mass media campaigns designed to support new pictorial health warnings on cigarette packets: evidence of a complementary relationship. Tob Control. 2011;20:412–8.
38.
McGuireWJ.Public communication as a strategy for inducing health-promoting behavioral change. Prev Med. 1984;13:299–319.
39.
HayJLOromHKiviniemiMTWatersEA.“I don’t know” my cancer risk: exploring deficits in cancer knowledge and information-seeking skills to explain an often-overlooked participant response. Med Decis Making. 2015;35:436–45.
40.
WatersEAHayJLOromHKiviniemiMTDrakeBF.“Don’t know” responses to risk perception measures: implications for underserved populations. Med Decis Making. 2013;33:271–81.
41.
WatersEAKiviniemiMTOromHHayJL.“I don’t know” my cancer risk: implications for health behavior engagement. Ann Behav Med. 2016;50:784–8.
42.
ReynaVFNelsonWFHanPKDieckmannNF. How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychol Bull. 2009;135:943–73.
43.
JanssenEvan OschLLechnerLCandelMde VriesH.Thinking versus feeling: differentiating between cognitive and affective components of perceived cancer risk. Psychol Health. 2012;27:767–783.
44.
MoserRPMccaulKPetersENelsonWMarcusSE.Associations of perceived risk and worry with cancer health-protective actions data from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). J Health Psychol. 2007;12:53–65.
45.
BrewerNTDeFrankJTGilkeyMB.Anticipated regret and health behavior: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 2016;35:1264–75.
46.
LoewensteinGFWeberEUHseeCKWelchN.Risk as feelings. Psychol Bull. 2001;127:267–86.
47.
Denes-RajVEpsteinS.Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: when people behave against their better judgment. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994;66:819–29.
48.
McQueenAVernonSWSwankPR.Construct definition and scale development for defensive information processing: an application to colorectal cancer screening. Health Psychol. 2013;32:190–202.
49.
MeadeAWCraigSB.Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychol Methods. 2012;17:437–55.
50.
HallgreenCEMt-IsaSLieftuchtAet al. Literature review of visual representation of the results of benefit–risk assessments of medicinal products. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2016;25:238–50.
StreinerDL.Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. J Pers Assess. 2003;80:99–103.
53.
US Department of Health and Human Services. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, 2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services2008.
54.
TaitARVoepel-LewisTZikmund-FisherBJFagerlinA.The effect of format on parents’ understanding of the risks and benefits of clinical research: a comparison between text, tables, and graphics. J Health Commun. 2010;15:487–501.
JanssenEvan OschLde VriesHLechnerL.Measuring risk perceptions of skin cancer: reliability and validity of different operationalizations. Br J Health Psychol. 2011;16:92–112.
57.
WeinsteinNDKwitelAMcCaulKDMagnanREGerrardMGibbonsFX.Risk perceptions: assessment and relationship to influenza vaccination. Health Psychol. 2007;26:146–51.
58.
ConnerM.The theory of planned behaviour and health behaviours. In: NormanPConnerMSparksP, eds. Predicting Health Behaviour. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press; 1995. p 121–62.
59.
YbarraVTCokelyETAdamsCet al. Training graph literacy: developing the RiskLiteracy.org outreach platform. In: GunzelmannGHowesATenbrinkTDavelaarE, eds. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society2017. p 3566–71.
60.
BurnsWJPetersESlovicP.Risk perception and the economic crisis: a longitudinal study of the trajectory of perceived risk. Risk Anal. 2012;32:659–77.
61.
DavidsSLSchapiraMMMcAuliffeTLNattingerAB.Predictors of pessimistic breast cancer risk perceptions in a primary care population. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19:310–5.
62.
DieckmannNFSlovicPPetersEM.The use of narrative evidence and explicit likelihood by decisionmakers varying in numeracy. Risk Anal. 2009;29:1473–88.
63.
SlovicPFischhoffBLichtensteinS.Characterizing perceived risk. In: KatesWHohenemserCKaspersonJX, eds. Perilous Progress: Managing the Hazards of Technology. Boulder, CO: Westview; 1985. p 91–125.
64.
PetrovaDGvan der PligtJGarcia-RetameroR.Feeling the numbers: on the interplay between risk, affect, and numeracy. J Behav Decis Making. 2014;27:191–9.
65.
SpenceI. No humble pie: the origins and usage of a statistical chart. J Educ Behav Stat. 2005;30:353–68.
66.
PetersE. Beyond comprehension: the role of numeracy in judgments and decisions. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2012;21:31–5.
67.
CokelyETGalesicMSchulzEGhazalSGarcia-RetameroR. Measuring risk literacy: The Berlin Numeracy Test. Judgm Decis Mak. 2012;7:25–47.
68.
LipkusIMSamsaGRimerBK. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:37–44.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
