The goal of the present paper is to review recent theoretical models and empirical studies on the role of numeracy (i.e., cognitive ability in processing numerical information) in decision making under risk and uncertainty. The research conducted in the last decade points that numeracy is the most robust predictor of making good decisions, which predictions are independent of other psychological constructs or cognitive abilities (such as fluid Intelligence or cognitive reflection). The pivotal role of numeracy has been described in at least three theoretical models: Fuzzy-Trace Theory, Skilled Decision Theory, and Multiple Numeric Competencies model. Furthermore, the results of numerous research indicate that better decisions made by people with high numeracy are underpinned by various psychological mechanisms of the cognitive, motivational, and affective nature. Findings related to the performance of people with high and low numeracy served to develop both immediate (e.g., visual aids or an experience-based format of risk communication) and long-term (e.g.,cognitive training) methods of improving the decision-making process. Based on these decision aids, we can effectively support people with low numeracy in an accurate risk assessment, risk comprehension, and making better decisions.

This study examined the impact of gender on the propensity to trust, responses to the violation of trust and apologies, and the pace of subsequent trust restoration. It was hypothesized that women would respond more positively to an apology but restore their trust at a slower pace than men. Results revealed no gender differences in level of trust immediately after an apology for trust violation, but there was a significant difference in the pace of trust restoration, with women returning to their pre-violation levels of trust later than men as hypothesized. There were also significant gender differences in levels of trust
before trust violation and after an apology.

Technical analysis (TA) is a tool believed to support investor’s investment decisions. Even if research has demonstrated that TA cannot be used to make systematic profits over a long time period, it could potentially bring psychological payoffs to its users in the form of enhancing their confidence. In an experimental study we show that: (1) chartists demonstrate
overconfidence in TA usage, believing that they are better than they actually are in TA formation recognition, and that; (2) the act of naming an observed trend as a TA formation brings extra confidence to the chartist, regardless of whether this is a real TA sequence or a random sequence. Thus, both naming an existing TA formation as a TA formation and naming a random sequence as a TA formation result in greater confidence. Also, irrespective of the high popularity of TA among investors, there are marked individual differences in TA followers. In a questionnaire study, we demonstrate that declared positive attitudes toward TA correlate positively with high need for (cognitive) closure (as measured by the Need for Cognitive Closure Scale; NFCS), specifically, desire for predictability.