School of Journalism and Communication, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403;
Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Sep 24;116(39):19386-19391. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1903126116. Epub 2019 Sep 9.
People often laugh about being "no good at math." Unrecognized, however, is that about one-third of American adults are likely too innumerate to operate effectively in financial and health environments. Two numeric competencies conceivably matter-objective numeracy (ability to "run the numbers" correctly; like literacy but with numbers) and numeric self-efficacy (confidence that provides engagement and persistence in numeric tasks). We reasoned, however, that attaining objective numeracy's benefits should depend on numeric confidence. Specifically, among the more objectively numerate, having more numeric confidence (vs. less) should lead to better outcomes because they persist in numeric tasks and have the skills to support numeric success. Among the less objectively numerate, however, having more (vs. less) numeric confidence should hurt outcomes, as they also persist, but make unrecognized mistakes. Two studies were designed to test the generalizability of this hypothesized interaction. We report secondary analysis of financial outcomes in a diverse US dataset and primary analysis of disease activity among systemic lupus erythematosus patients. In both domains, best outcomes appeared to require numeric calculation skills and the persistence of numeric confidence. "Mismatched" individuals (high ability/low confidence or low ability/high confidence) experienced the worst outcomes. For example, among the most numerate patients, only 7% of the more numerically confident had predicted disease activity indicative of needing further treatment compared with 31% of high-numeracy/low-confidence patients and 44% of low-numeracy/high-confidence patients. Our work underscores that having 1 of these competencies (objective numeracy or numeric self-efficacy) does not guarantee superior outcomes.
人们常开玩笑说自己“不擅长数学”。然而，人们没有意识到的是，大约有三分之一的美国成年人可能由于算数能力不足，而无法在金融和健康环境中有效地运作。有两种可能对人们很重要的数字能力：客观算数能力（正确“计算数字”的能力；就像读写能力，但对象是数字）和数字自我效能（对参与和坚持完成数字任务的信心）。然而，我们推断，获得客观算数能力的好处应该取决于数字信心。具体来说，在那些更客观地具备算数能力的人中，拥有更多的数字信心（而不是更少）应该会带来更好的结果，因为他们会坚持完成数字任务，并且具备支持数字成功的技能。然而，在那些不太具备客观算数能力的人中，拥有更多的数字信心（而不是更少）应该会损害结果，因为他们也会坚持，但会犯未被认识到的错误。我们设计了两项研究来测试这种假设的相互作用的普遍性。我们报告了在美国多样化数据集的财务结果的二次分析，以及系统性红斑狼疮患者疾病活动的主要分析。在这两个领域，最佳结果似乎都需要数字计算技能和数字信心的坚持。“不匹配”的个体（高能力/低信心或低能力/高信心）经历了最糟糕的结果。例如，在最具算数能力的患者中，只有 7%的更有数字信心的患者出现了需要进一步治疗的预测疾病活动，而高算数能力/低信心的患者中有 31%，低算数能力/高信心的患者中有 44%。我们的工作强调，拥有其中一种能力（客观算数能力或数字自我效能）并不能保证更好的结果。
