While numerical formats are more precise estimates, numbers on food labels are often difficult to interpret ( Campos et al., 2011 Liu & Juanchich, 2018).
Unfortunately, there is conflicting evidence on whether existing information formats (e.g., labels indicating the percentage of one’s “Guideline Daily Amount” hereafter “GDA,” that a food provides) achieve these goals ( Campos et al., 2011 Grunert et al., 2010 Levy et al., 2000 Scammon, 1977). To use the food choice context as an example, people should be able to accurately perceive nutrient quantities communicated while shopping in an environment with information overload. Ideally, the best format to present such quantified information should facilitate informed decision-making while not overtaxing cognitive resources.
For example, information about food can be presented using numerical values (e.g., “20%”) or as a verbal quantifier (e.g., “low”). Altogether, these results suggest that verbal quantifiers are processed intuitively, slightly more so than numerical quantifiers, but that numerical quantifiers do not require much analytical processing to reach simple decisions.ĭecisions are often made in a complex environment with an abundance of options, differentiated by information presented in differing formats. However, memory load did not impair decisions with verbal or numerical quantifiers. Participants were faster and made fewer correct decisions with verbal quantifiers, and they relied more on contextual information (i.e., the identity of the nutrient involved).
#Verbal signpost trial#
The experiments used a mixed design varying format (verbal or numerical), concurrent memory load (no load, easy, and hard load in Experiment 1 no load and hard load in Experiment 2), nutrient (fat and minerals), quantity (low, medium, and high in Experiment 1 low and high in Experiment 2), and the assigned correct response for a trial (within and exceeding limits). Participants imagined they had consumed a given amount of a nutrient (represented in a pie chart) and decided whether a new quantity (either verbal or numerical) could be eaten within their guideline daily amount (GDA).
We tested this hypothesis in two pre-registered experiments measuring four indicators of processing style: (a) response time, (b) decision performance, (c) reliance on irrelevant contextual information, which we inferred from participants’ decision patterns, and (d) the level of interference from a concurrent memory task. However, prior research implies that verbal quantifiers are processed more intuitively than numerical ones. Verbal and numerical formats (e.g., verbal: “low fat,” or numerical: “20% fat”) are used interchangeably to communicate nutritional information.
0 kommentar(er)
