We make decisions every day, and many of these decisions are inherently uncertain. To gain confidence in our decisions, we use techniques such as information gathering. However, traits such as...Show moreWe make decisions every day, and many of these decisions are inherently uncertain. To gain confidence in our decisions, we use techniques such as information gathering. However, traits such as Intolerance of Uncertainty (IU), a common symptom of anxiety disorders and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, may cause significant impairments within this process. Decision making, information gathering and IU have each been independently researched, however little is known about how the three interact. This paper hypothesised a negative association between IU and confidence, when information gathering is controlled for. Additionally, it was expected that information gathering moderates the relationship between IU and confidence, such that when those with higher IU sample more, they feel more confident. A non-clinical sample (N = 214) was recruited through the online crowdsourcing platform Prolific.co. The variables of interest were measured using self-reported scales of IU and confidence, and an Information Sampling Task. No significant association between IU and confidence, when information gathering is controlled for, was found. However, a regression analysis found that information gathering moderates the relationship between IU and confidence, such that with increasing levels of IU, participants reported higher confidence when they sampled more information, compared to when they sampled little information. These results may indicate that the confidence of individuals who are less tolerant to uncertainty in decision making might be more strongly influenced by the amount of information they have access to. Limitations of the study design are identified, along with suggestions for future research. Through further understanding of these three processes, there are potential implications within therapeutic contexts, whilst also opening the door for further exploration.Show less
Medicine side effects are generally overestimated. This is possibly caused by the tendency to describe any risk at 50%, referred to as the “50% blips”. These 50% blips have been associated with...Show moreMedicine side effects are generally overestimated. This is possibly caused by the tendency to describe any risk at 50%, referred to as the “50% blips”. These 50% blips have been associated with participants indicating to not knowing the answer and low numeracy levels. The aim of this study is to investigate whether we observe the 50% blips in a series of low probability side effects risk estimation questions and to analyse if this can be explained by the participants’ confidence in their estimation. Data was collected through a survey, consisting of a Subjective Numeracy Scale (SNS), four side effect risk estimation questions and a follow-up question to assess the participants’ confidence in their answer. We observed no uses of 50%. We presume this is a consequence of our study set-up, primarily because our research sample is highly homogenous and consisted of high education level and high numeracy level students. We conclude that the 50% blips does not apply in high education and high numeracy level groups. This is in line with previous research that found an association between the use of 50% and low education and high numeracy level. More research on this topic is needed to gain further insight into the underlying mechanisms of health risk estimations on Patient Information Leaflets (PILs).Show less
