Interpreting claims in offender profiles: The role of probability phrases, base-rates and perceived dangerousness

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 36-54

  Villejoubert, Gaëlle ^a   Almond, Louise ^b   Alison, Laurence ^b  

^a UTM   (France)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 60149103799     PISSN: 08884080     EISSN: 10990720     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acp.1438     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Alison, L., & Crego, J. (2008). Policing critical incidents: Leadership and critical incident management. Devon: Willan Publishers.
2. Alison, L., Mclean, C., & Almond, L. (2007). Profiling suspects. In T. Newburn, T.Williamson, & A. Wright (Eds.), Handbook of criminal investigation. Devon, Cullumpton: Willan Publishers.
3. Alison, L., West, A., & Goodwill, A. (2004). The academic and the practitioner: Pragmatists' views of offender profiling. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 10, 71-101.
4. Alison, L., Bennell, C., Mokros, A., & Ormerod, D. (2002). The personality paradox in offender profiling: A theoretical review of the processes involved in deriving background characteristics from crime scene actions. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 8, 115-135.
5. 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 Profiling (in press).
6. Bonnefon, J. F., & Villejoubert, G. (2006). Tactful, or doubtful? Expectations of politeness explain the severity bias in the interpretation of probability phrases.Psychological Science, 17, 747-751.
7. Brun, W., & Teigen, K. (1988). Verbal probabilities: Ambigious, context-dependent, or both? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 390-404.
8. Bryant, G., & Norman, G. (1980). Expressions of probability: Words and numbers. New England Journal of Medicine, 302, 411-427.
9. Budescu, D., & Wallsten, T. (1985). Consistency in interpretation of probabilistic phrases. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 391-485.
10. Budescu, D. V., & Wallsten, T. S. (1995). Processing linguistic probabilities: General principles and empirical evidence. In J. Busemeyer, R. Hastie, & D. L. Medin (Eds.), Decision making from a cognitive perspective. New York: Academic Press.
11. Budescu, D., Karelitz, T., & Wallsten, T. (2003). Predicting the directionality of probability words from their membership functions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16, 159-180.
12. Budescu, D., Weinberg, S., & Wallsten, T. (1988). Decisions based on numerically and verbally expressed uncertainties. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 281-294.
13. Collins, S., & Alison, L. (2002). How certain are offender profilers about the claims they make? Internal report for the National Crime and Operations Faculty, Hook, Bramshill, UK.
14. Erev, I., & Cohen, B. L. (1990). Verbal versus numerical probabilities: Efficiency, biases, and the preference paradox. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45, 1-18.
15. Evans, J. St. B. T. (1998). Matching bias in conditional reasoning: Do we understand it after 25 years? Thinking and Reasoning, 4, 45-82.
16. Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17. Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58, 697-720.
18. Karelitz, T., & Budescu, D. (2004). You say "probable" and I say "likely": Improving interpersonal communication with verbal probability phrases. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 25-41.
19. Levin, I. P., & Gaeth, G. J. (1988). How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 374-378.
20. Maule, A. J. (1989). Positive and negative decision frames: A verbal protocol analysis of the Asian Disease problem of Tversky and Kahneman. In H. Montgomery, & O. Svenson (Eds.), Process and structure in human decision making. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
21. Maule, A. J., & Villejoubert, G. (2007). What lies beneath: Reframing framing effects. Thinking and Reasoning, 13, 25-44.
22. Moxey, L. M., & Sanford, A. J. (2000). Communicating quantities: A review of psycholinguistic evidence of how expressions determine perspectives. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 237-255.
23. Natter, H. N., & Berry, D. C. (2005). Effects of active information processing on the understanding of risk information. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 123-135.
24. Reagan, R., Mosteller, F., & Youtz, C. (1989). Quantitative meanings of verbal probability expressions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 433-442.
25. Russo, J., & Schomaker, P. (1989). Decision traps. New York: Schuster & Simon.
26. Teigen, K., & Brun, W. (1995). Yes, but it is uncertain: Direction and communicative intention of verbal probabilistic terms. Acta Psychologica, 88, 233-258.
27. Teigen, K., & Brun, W. (2003). Verbal probabilities: A question of frame? Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 16, 53-72.
28. Wallsten, T., Budescu, D., Rapoport, A., Zwick, R., & Forsyth, B. (1986). Measuring the vague meanings of probability terms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 348-365.
29. Wallsten, T., Fillenbaum, S., & Cox, J. (1986). Base rate effects on the interpretation of probability and frequency expressions. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 571-587.
30. Weber, E., & Hilton, D. (1990). Contextual effects in the interpretation of probability words: Perceived base rate and severity of events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 781-789.