Skip to main content
Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research 8/2020

27-06-2019 | Original Article

Do people really prefer verbal probabilities?

Auteurs: Marie Juanchich, Miroslav Sirota

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 8/2020

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

When people communicate uncertainty, do they prefer to use words (e.g., “a chance”, “possible”) or numbers (e.g., “20%”, “a 1 in 2 chance”)? To answer this question, past research drew from a range of methodologies, yet failed to provide a clear-cut answer. Building on a review of existing methodologies, theoretical accounts and empirical findings, we tested the hypothesis that the preference for a particular format is driven by the variant of uncertainty that people experience. We expected that epistemic uncertainty would be more often communicated in words, whereas distributional uncertainty would be more often communicated in numbers; for the dispositional uncertainty, we expected that an individual’s disposition would be more often communicated in words, whereas dispositions from the world would be more often communicated numerically. In three experiments (one oral, two written), participants communicated their uncertainty regarding two outcomes per variants of uncertainty: epistemic, dispositional and distributional. Overall, participants communicated their uncertainty more often in words, but this preference depended on the variants of uncertainty. Participants conveyed their epistemic and dispositional uncertainties more often in words and their distributional uncertainty in numbers (Experiments 1 and 2) but this effect was greatly reduced when the precision of uncertainty was held constant (Experiment 3), pointing out the key role of uncertainty vagueness. We have reviewed the implications of our findings for the existing accounts of format preferences.
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
go back to reference Almond, L., Alison, L., & Porter, L. (2007). An evaluation and comparison of claims made in behavioural investigative advice reports compiled by the national policing improvements agency in the United Kingdom. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Proffiling, 4, 71–83. CrossRef Almond, L., Alison, L., & Porter, L. (2007). An evaluation and comparison of claims made in behavioural investigative advice reports compiled by the national policing improvements agency in the United Kingdom. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Proffiling, 4, 71–83. CrossRef
go back to reference Budescu, D. V., & Wallsten, T. S. (1995). Processing linguistic probabilities: General principles and empirical evidence. In R. H. J. R. Busemeyer & D. Medin (Eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 275–318). Amsterdam: Academic. Budescu, D. V., & Wallsten, T. S. (1995). Processing linguistic probabilities: General principles and empirical evidence. In R. H. J. R. Busemeyer & D. Medin (Eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 275–318). Amsterdam: Academic.
go back to reference Collins, S., & Alison, L. (2002). How certain are offender profilers about the claims they make? Collins, S., & Alison, L. (2002). How certain are offender profilers about the claims they make?
go back to reference Dhami, M. K., Mandel, D. R., Mellers, B. A., & Tetlock, P. E. (2015). Improving intelligence analysis with decision science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 753–757. PubMedCrossRef Dhami, M. K., Mandel, D. R., Mellers, B. A., & Tetlock, P. E. (2015). Improving intelligence analysis with decision science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 753–757. PubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Du, X.-L., Liu, S.-H., Xu, J.-H., Rao, L.-L., Jiang, C.-M., & Li, S. (2013). When uncertainty meets life: The effect of animacy on probability expression. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 425–438. Du, X.-L., Liu, S.-H., Xu, J.-H., Rao, L.-L., Jiang, C.-M., & Li, S. (2013). When uncertainty meets life: The effect of animacy on probability expression. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 425–438.
go back to reference European Commission. (1998). A guideline on the readability of the label and package leaflet of medicinal products for human use. European Commission. (1998). A guideline on the readability of the label and package leaflet of medicinal products for human use.
go back to reference European Food Safety Authority. (2017). Guidance on uncertainty in efsa scientific assessment draft. European Food Safety Authority. (2017). Guidance on uncertainty in efsa scientific assessment draft.
go back to reference Hacking, I. (1966). Subjective probability. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 16, 334–339. CrossRef Hacking, I. (1966). Subjective probability. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 16, 334–339. CrossRef
go back to reference Hamm, R. M. (1991). Selection of verbal probabilities: A solution for some problems of verbal probability expression. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48, 193–223. CrossRef Hamm, R. M. (1991). Selection of verbal probabilities: A solution for some problems of verbal probability expression. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48, 193–223. CrossRef
go back to reference Hilton, D. J. (2008). Emotional tone and argumentation in risk communication. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 100–110. Hilton, D. J. (2008). Emotional tone and argumentation in risk communication. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 100–110.
go back to reference Ho, E. H., Budescu, D. V., Dhami, M. K., & Mandel, D. R. (2015). Improving the communication of uncertainty in climate science and intelligence analysis. Behavioral Science & Policy, 1, 43–55. CrossRef Ho, E. H., Budescu, D. V., Dhami, M. K., & Mandel, D. R. (2015). Improving the communication of uncertainty in climate science and intelligence analysis. Behavioral Science & Policy, 1, 43–55. CrossRef
go back to reference Homeland Security Risk Steering Committee. (2008). Department of homeland security risk lexicon: Homeland Security. Homeland Security Risk Steering Committee. (2008). Department of homeland security risk lexicon: Homeland Security.
go back to reference Honda, I., & Yamagishi, K. (2009). Perceived certainty based on verbal probability phrases: Effect of directionality and its dependence on method. Japanese Psychological Research, 51, 266–273. CrossRef Honda, I., & Yamagishi, K. (2009). Perceived certainty based on verbal probability phrases: Effect of directionality and its dependence on method. Japanese Psychological Research, 51, 266–273. CrossRef
go back to reference Howell, W. C., & Burnett, S. A. (1978). Uncertainty measurement: A cognitive taxonomy. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 45–68. CrossRef Howell, W. C., & Burnett, S. A. (1978). Uncertainty measurement: A cognitive taxonomy. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 45–68. CrossRef
go back to reference Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Climate change 2007. The climate change physical science basis. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Climate change 2007. The climate change physical science basis.
go back to reference Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2013). Fifth assessment report climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Summary for policymakers. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2013). Fifth assessment report climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Summary for policymakers.
go back to reference International Accounting Standard Committee. (1998). Provisions, contingent liabilities and contingent assets, international accounting standard 37. London. International Accounting Standard Committee. (1998). Provisions, contingent liabilities and contingent assets, international accounting standard 37. London.
go back to reference Juanchich, M., Gourdon-Kanhukamwe, A., & Sirota, M. (2017). ‘I am uncertain’ or ‘it is uncertain’? How linguistic markers of the uncertainty source affect uncertainty communication. Journal of Memory and Language, 12, 445–465. Juanchich, M., Gourdon-Kanhukamwe, A., & Sirota, M. (2017). ‘I am uncertain’ or ‘it is uncertain’? How linguistic markers of the uncertainty source affect uncertainty communication. Journal of Memory and Language, 12, 445–465.
go back to reference Juanchich, M., & Sirota, M. (2019). Most family physicians report communicating the risks of side effects in words, but less so for severe side effects. Applied Cognitive Psychology. Juanchich, M., & Sirota, M. (2019). Most family physicians report communicating the risks of side effects in words, but less so for severe side effects. Applied Cognitive Psychology.
go back to reference Keren, G., & Teigen, K. H. (2001). The probability—Outcome correspondence principle: A dispositional view of the interpretation of probability statements. Memory and Cognition, 29, 1010–1021. PubMedCrossRef Keren, G., & Teigen, K. H. (2001). The probability—Outcome correspondence principle: A dispositional view of the interpretation of probability statements. Memory and Cognition, 29, 1010–1021. PubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Kuipers, B., Moskowitz, A. J., & Kassirer, J. P. (1988). Critical decisions under uncertainty: Representation and structure. Cognitive Science, 12, 177–210. CrossRef Kuipers, B., Moskowitz, A. J., & Kassirer, J. P. (1988). Critical decisions under uncertainty: Representation and structure. Cognitive Science, 12, 177–210. CrossRef
go back to reference Lagnado, D. A., & Sloman, S. A. (2007). Inside and outside probability judgment. In D. J. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 155–176). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Lagnado, D. A., & Sloman, S. A. (2007). Inside and outside probability judgment. In D. J. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 155–176). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
go back to reference Mazur, D. J., & Hickam, D. H. (1991). Patients’ interpretation of probability terms. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 6, 237–240. PubMedCrossRef Mazur, D. J., & Hickam, D. H. (1991). Patients’ interpretation of probability terms. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 6, 237–240. PubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Ministry of Defence. (2011). Understanding and intelligence support to joint operations. In M. O. Defence (Ed.), The development, concepts and doctrine centre. Ministry of Defence. (2011). Understanding and intelligence support to joint operations. In M. O. Defence (Ed.), The development, concepts and doctrine centre.
go back to reference Olson, M. J., & Budescu, D. V. (1997). Patterns of preference for numerical and verbal probabilities. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10, 117–131. CrossRef Olson, M. J., & Budescu, D. V. (1997). Patterns of preference for numerical and verbal probabilities. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10, 117–131. CrossRef
go back to reference Reagan, R. T., Mosteller, F., & Youtz, C. (1989). Quantitative meanings of verbal probability expressions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 433–442. PubMedCrossRef Reagan, R. T., Mosteller, F., & Youtz, C. (1989). Quantitative meanings of verbal probability expressions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 433–442. PubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Renooij, S., & Witteman, C. (1999). Talking probabilities: Communicating probabilistic information with words and numbers. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 22, 169–194. CrossRef Renooij, S., & Witteman, C. (1999). Talking probabilities: Communicating probabilistic information with words and numbers. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 22, 169–194. CrossRef
go back to reference Teigen, K. H., & Brun, W. (2000). Ambiguous probabilities: When does p = 0.3 reflect a possibility, and when does it express a doubt? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 345–362. CrossRef Teigen, K. H., & Brun, W. (2000). Ambiguous probabilities: When does p = 0.3 reflect a possibility, and when does it express a doubt? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 345–362. CrossRef
go back to reference Teigen, K. H., & Brun, W. (2003). Verbal expressions of uncertainty and probability. In D. Hardman & L. Macchi (Eds.), Thinking: psychological perspectives on reasoning, judgment and decision making (pp. 125–145). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Teigen, K. H., & Brun, W. (2003). Verbal expressions of uncertainty and probability. In D. Hardman & L. Macchi (Eds.), Thinking: psychological perspectives on reasoning, judgment and decision making (pp. 125–145). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
go back to reference Ülkümen, G., Fox, C. R., & Malle, B. F. (2016). Two dimensions of subjective uncertainty: Clues from natural language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 1280–1297. CrossRef Ülkümen, G., Fox, C. R., & Malle, B. F. (2016). Two dimensions of subjective uncertainty: Clues from natural language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 1280–1297. CrossRef
go back to reference Young, S., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Effect of communication strategy on personal risk perception and treatment adherence intentions. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 14, 430–442. CrossRef Young, S., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Effect of communication strategy on personal risk perception and treatment adherence intentions. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 14, 430–442. CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Do people really prefer verbal probabilities?
Auteurs
Marie Juanchich
Miroslav Sirota
Publicatiedatum
27-06-2019
Uitgeverij
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 8/2020
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01207-0

Andere artikelen Uitgave 8/2020

Psychological Research 8/2020 Naar de uitgave