Interpersonal comparison of subjective probabilities: Toward translating linguistic probabilities

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 33, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 1057-1068

  Dhami, Mandeep K ^a   Wallsten, Thomas S ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INDIVIDUALITY; LANGUAGE ABILITY; LEARNING; LINGUISTICS; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; NORMAL HUMAN; PROBABILITY; METHODOLOGY; STATISTICAL MODEL; SYSTEM ANALYSIS;

DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; LINGUISTICS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PROBABILITY THEORY;

EID: 33645065899     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03193213     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. BARTOSHUK, L. A., DUFFY, V. B., FAST, K., GREEN, B. G., PRUTKIN, J., & SNYDER, D. J. (2002). Labeled scales (e.g., category, Likert, VAS) and invalid across-group comparisons: What we have learned from genetic variation in taste. Food Quality & Preference, 14, 125-138.
2. BEYTH-MAROM, R. (1982). How probable is probable? Numerical translation of verbal probability expressions. Journal of Forecasting, 1, 257-269.
3. BORG, G. (1982). A category scale with ratio properties for intermodal and interindividual comparisons. In H. Geissler, P. Petzold, H. Buffart, & Y. Zabrodin (Eds.), Psychophysical judgment and the process of perception (pp. 25-34). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
4. BRADBURN, N. W., & MILES, C. (1979). Vague quantifiers. Public Opinion Quarterly, 43, 92-101.
5. BRUN, W., & TEIGEN, K. (1988). Verbal probabilities: Ambiguous, context-dependent, or both? Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 41, 390-404.
6. BRYANT, G. D., & NORMAN, G. R. (1980). Expressions of probability: Words and numbers. New England Journal of Medicine, 302, 411.
7. BUDESCU, D. V., KARELITZ, T., & WALLSTEN, T. S. (2003). Predicting the directionality of probability words from their membership functions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16, 159-180.
8. BUDESCU, D. V., & WALLSTEN, T. S. (1985). Consistency in interpretation of probabilistic phrases. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 36, 391-405.
9. BUDESCU, D. V., & WALLSTEN, T. S. (1990). Dyadic decisions with numerical and verbal probabilities. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 46, 240-263.
10. BUDESCU, D. V., & WALLSTEN, T. S. (1995). Processing linguistic probabilities: General principles and empirical evidence. In J. Busemeyer, D. L. Medin, & R. Hastie (Eds.), Decision making from a cognitive perspective (pp. 275-318). New York: Academic Press.
11. BUDESCU, D. V., WEINBERG, S., & WALLSTEN, T. S. (1988). Decisions based on numerically and verbally expressed uncertainties. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 14, 281-294.
12. LARK, D. A. (1990). Verbal uncertainty expressions: A review of two decades of research. Current Psychology: Research & Reviews, 9, 203-235.
13. DE FINETTI, B. (1964). La prévision: Ses lois logiques, ses sources subjectives. Annales de l'Institut Henri Poincaré, 7, 1-68. (Original work published 1937)
14. EREV, I., & COHEN, B. L. (1990). Verbal versus numerical probabilities: Efficiency, biases, and the preference paradox. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 44, 1-18.
15. FILLENBAUM, S., WALLSTEN, T. S., COHEN, B. L., & COX, J. A. (1991). Some effects of vocabulary and communication task on the understanding and use of vague probability expressions. American Journal of Psychology, 104, 35-60.
16. FISHBURN, P. (1970). Utility theory for decision making (Vol. 18). New York: Wiley.
17. GONZÁLEZ-VALLEJO, C., EREV, I., & WALLSTEN, T. S. (1994). Do decision quality and preference order depend on whether probabilities are verbal or numerical? American Journal of Psychology, 107, 157-172.
18. GONZÁLEZ-VALLEJO, C., & WALLSTEN, T. S. (1992). Effects of probability mode on preference reversal. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 18, 855-864.
19. HACKING, I. (1975). The emergence of probability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. HAMM, R. M. (1991). Selection of verbal probabilities: A solution for some problems of verbal probability expression. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 48, 193-223.
21. JAFFE-KATZ, A., BUDESCU, D. V., & WALLSTEN, T. S. (1989). Timed magnitude comparisons of numerical and nonnumerical expressions of uncertainty. Memory & Cognition, 17, 249-264.
22. KAHNEMAN, D., & TVERSKY, A. (1982). Variants of uncertainty. Cognition, 11, 143-157.
23. KARELITZ, T., & BUDESCU, D. V. (2004). You say probable and I say likely: Improving interpersonal communication with verbal prob-ability phrases. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 25-41.
24. KARELITZ, T., BUDESCU, D. V., & WALLSTEN, T. S. (2000, November). Validation of a new technique for eliciting membership functions of probability phrases. Poster presented at the meeting of the Society for Judgment and Decision Making, New Orleans.
25. KONG, A., BARNETT, G. O., MOSTELLER, F., & YOUTZ, C. (1986). How medical professionals evaluate expressions of probability. New England Journal of Medicine, 315, 740-744.
26. KRANTZ, D. H., LUCE, R. D., SUPPES, P., & TVERSKY, A. (1971). Foundations of measurement 1: Additive and polynomial representation. New York: Academic Press.
27. AMING, D. R. J. (1997). The measurement of sensation. London: Oxford University Press.
28. ICHTENSTEIN, S., & NEWMAN, J. R. (1967). Empirical scaling of common verbal phrases associated with numerical probabilities. Psychonomic Science, 9, 563-564.
29. UCE, R. D. (1959). Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis. New York: Wiley.
30. ARSHALL, E. (1986). Feynman issues his own shuttle report, attacking NASA's risk estimates. Science, 232, 1596.
31. OSTELLER, F., & YOUTZ, C. (1990). Quantifying probabilistic expressions. Statistical Science, 5, 2-34.
32. ULLET, E., & RIVET, I. (1991). Comprehension of verbal probability expressions in children and adolescents. Language & Communication, 11, 217-225.
33. NARENS, L., & LUCE, R. D. (1983). How we may have been misled into believing in the interpersonal comparability of utility. Theory & Decision, 15, 247-260.
34. NEWSTEAD, S. E. (1988). Quantifiers as fuzzy concepts. In T. Zetenyi (Ed.), Fuzzy sets in psychology (pp. 51-72). Amsterdam: Elsevier, North-Holland.
35. OLSON, M. J., & BUDESCU, D. V. (1997). Patterns of preference for numerical and verbal probabilities. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10, 117-131.
36. RAPOPORT, A., WALLSTEN, T. S., & COX, J. A. (1987). Direct and indirect scaling of membership functions of probability phrases. Mathematical Modeling, 9, 397-417.
37. REAGAN, T. R., MOSTELLER, F., & YOUTZ, C. (1989). Quantitative meanings of verbal probability expressions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 433-442.
38. RENOOIJ, S., & WITTEMAN, C. (1999). Talking probabilities: Communicating probabilistic information with words and numbers. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 22, 169-194.
39. SAVAGE, L. J. (1972). The foundations of statistics (2nd rev. ed.). New York: Dover.
40. SCHWARZ, N. (1999). Frequency reports of physical symptoms and health behaviors: How the questionnaire determines the results. In D. C. Park, R. W. Morrell, & K. Shifren (Eds.), Processing of medical information in aging patients (pp. 93-108). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
41. SIMPSON, R. H. (1944). The specific meanings of certain terms indicating differing degrees of frequency. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 30, 328-330.
42. STEWART, N., CHATER, N., STOTT, H. P., & REIMERS, S. (2003). Prospect relativity: How choice options influence decision under risk. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 23-46.
43. TANUR, J. M. (1990). Comment. Statistical Science, 5, 21-22.
44. TEGHTSOONIAN, R., TEGHTSOONIAN, M., & KARLSSON, J. G. (1981). The limits of perceived magnitude: Comparison among individuals and among perceptual continua. Acta Psychologica, 49, 83-94.
45. TEIGEN, K. H., & BRUN, W. (1995). Yes, but it is uncertain: Direction and communicative intention of verbal probabilistic terms. Acta Psychologica, 88, 233-258.
46. TOURANGEAU, R., RIPS, L. J., & RASINSKI, K. (2000). The psychology of survey responses. New York: Cambridge University Press.
47. TVERSKY, A. (1967). Additivity, utility and subjective probability. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 4, 175-201.
48. VON WINTERFELDT, D., & EDWARDS, W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49. WALLSTEN, T. S. (1971). Subjectively expected utility theory and subjects' probability estimates: Use of measurement-free techniques. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 31-40.
50. WALLSTEN, T. S. (1974). The psychological concept of subjective probability: A measurement theoretical view. In C. A. S. Stael von Holstein (Ed.), The concept of probability in psychological experiments (pp. 49-72). Dordrecht: Reidel.
51. WALLSTEN, T. S. (1990). Measuring vague uncertainties and understanding their use in decision making. In G. M. Von Furstenberg (Ed.), Acting under uncertainty: Multidisciplinary conceptions (pp. 377-398). London: Kluwer.
52. WALLSTEN, T. S., & BUDESCU, D. V. (1983). Encoding subjective probabilities: A psychological and psychometric review. Management Science, 29, 151-173.
53. WALLSTEN, T. S., & BUDESCU, D. V. (1990). Comment on Mosteller and Youtz' "Quantifying probabilistic expressions." Statistical Science, 5, 23-26.
54. WALLSTEN, T. S., BUDESCU, D. V., RAPOPORT, A., ZWICK, R., & FORSYTH, B. (1986). Measuring the vague meanings of probability terms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 348-365.
55. WALLSTEN, T. S., BUDESCU, D. V., & ZWICK, R. (1993). Comparing the calibration and coherence of numerical and verbal probability judgments. Management Science, 39, 176-190.
56. WALLSTEN, T. S., BUDESCU, D. V., ZWICK, R., & KEMP, S. M. (1993). Preferences and reasons for communicating probabilistic information in verbal or numerical terms. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31, 135-138.
57. WALLSTEN, T. S., FILLENBAUM, S., & COX, A. (1986). Base-rate effects on the interpretations of probability and frequency expressions. Journal of Memory & Language, 25, 571-587.
58. WEBER, E. U., & HILTON, D. J. (1990). Contextual effects in the interpretations of probability words: Perceived base rate and severity of events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 16, 781-789.
59. ZADEH, L. A. (1975). The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning [Parts 1, 2, 3]. Information Sciences, 8, 199; 8, 301; 9, 43.
60. ZIMMER, A. C. (1983). Verbal versus numerical processing of subjective probabilities. In R. W. Scholz (Ed.), Decision making under uncertainty (pp. 159-182). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
61. ZWICK, R., CARLSTEIN, E., & BUDESCU, D. V. (1987). Measures of similarity among fuzzy concepts: A comparative analysis. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 1, 221-242.