Communicating Environmental Risks: Clarifying the Severity Effect in Interpretations of Verbal Probability Expressions

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 37, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 1571-1578

  Harris, Adam J L ^a   Corner, Adam ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Environmental risk; Risk communication; Risk perception; Severity effect; Verbal probability expressions

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; ENVIRONMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROBABILITY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; VERBAL BEHAVIOR;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ENVIRONMENT; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; TRUTH DISCLOSURE; VERBAL BEHAVIOR; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 82155170535     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0024195     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Batchelor R., Peel D. Rationality testing under asymmetric loss. Economics Letters 1998, 61:49-54. doi: 10.1016/S0165-1765(98)00157-8.
2. Beyth-Marom R. How probable is probable? A numerical translation of verbal probability expressions. Journal of Forecasting 1982, 1:257-269. doi: 10.1002/for.3980010305.
3. Bonnefon J.-F., Villejoubert G. Tactful or doubtful? Expectations of politeness explain the severity bias in the interpretation of probability phrases. Psychological Science 2006, 17:747-751. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01776.x.
4. Brown P., Levinson S.C. Politeness: Some universals in language usage 1987, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
5. Brun W., Teigen K.H. Verbal probabilities: Ambiguous, context- dependent, or both?. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1988, 41:390-404. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(88)90036-2.
6. Budescu D.V., Broomell S., Por H. Improving communication of uncertainty in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Psychological Science 2009, 20:299-308. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02284.x.
7. Carroll J.S. The effect of imagining an event on expectations for the event: An interpretation in terms of the availability heuristic. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1978, 14:88-96. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(78)90062-8.
8. Fischer K., Jungermann H. Rarely occurring headaches and rarely occurring blindness: Is rarely = rarely? Meaning of verbal frequentistic labels in specific medical contexts. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 1996, 9:153-172. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199609)9:3<153::AID-BDM222>3.0.CO;2-W.
9. Harris A.J.L., Corner A., Hahn U. Estimating the probability of negative events. Cognition 2009, 110:51-64. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.10.006.
10. Guidance notes for lead authors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Addressing Uncertainties 2005, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf.
11. A report of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Summary for policymakers 2007, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf.
12. Juanchich M., Teigen K.H., Villejoubert G. Is guilt "likely" or "not certain" ? Contrast with previous probabilities determines choice of verbal terms. Acta Psychologica 2010, 135:267-277. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.04.016.
13. Lench H.C. Automatic optimism: The affective basis of judgments about the likelihood of future events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2009, 138:187-200. doi: 10.1037/a0015380.
14. Loewenstein G.F., Weber E.U., Hsee C.K., Welch N. Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin 2001, 127:267-286. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267.
15. Lorenzoni I., Nicholson-Cole S., Whitmarsh L. Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environmental Change 2007, 17:445-459. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.01.004.
16. Merz J.F., Druzdzel M.J., Mazur D.J. Verbal expressions of probability in informed consent litigation. Medical Decision Making 1991, 11:273-281. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9101100405.
17. Patt A., Dessai S. Communicating uncertainty: Lessons learned and suggestions for climate change assessment. Comptes Rendus Geoscience 2005, 337:425-441. doi: 10.1016/j.crte.2004.10.004.
18. Patt A.G., Schrag D.P. Using specific language to describe risk and probability. Climatic Change 2003, 61:17-30. doi: 10.1023/A:1026314523443.
19. Pidgeon N., Harthorn B., Satterfield T. Nanotech: Good or bad?. The Chemical Engineer Today 2009-2010, December-January, 822(3):37-39.
20. Pidgeon N.F., Kasperson R.K., Slovic P. The social amplification of risk 2003, doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511550461.
21. Pidgeon N.F., Lorenzoni I., Poortinga W. Climate change or nuclear power-no thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain. Global Environmental Change 2008, 18:69-85. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.09.005.
22. Risen J.L., Gilovich T. Another look at why people are reluctant to exchange lottery tickets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2007, 93:12-22. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.12.
23. Schoen D.T., Schoen A.P., Hu L., Kim H.S., Heilshorn S.C., Cui Y. High speed water sterilization using one-dimensional nanostructures. Nano Letters 2010, 10:3628-3632. doi: 10.1021/nl101944e.
24. Slovic P. The feeling of risk: New perspectives on risk perception 2010, Earthscan, London, England.
25. Stewart N. The cost of anchoring on credit-card minimum repayments. Psychological Science 2009, 20:39-41. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02255.x.
26. Teigen K.H. The language of uncertainty. Acta Psychologica 1988, 68:27-38. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(88)90043-1.
27. Teigen K.H., Brun W. Yes, but it is uncertain: Direction and communicative intention of verbal probabilistic terms. Acta Psychologica 1995, 88:233-258. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(93)E0071-9.
28. Teigen K.H., Brun W. Verbal probabilities: A question of frame?. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 2003, 16:53-72. doi: 10.1002/bdm.432.
29. Villejoubert G., Almond L., Alison L. Interpreting claims in offender profiles: The role of probability phrases, base-rates and perceived dangerousness. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2009, 23:36-54. doi: 10.1002/acp.1438.
30. Vosgerau J. How prevalent is wishful thinking? Misattribution of arousal causes optimism and pessimism in subjective probabilities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2010, 139:32-48. doi: 10.1037/a0018144.
31. Wallsten T.S., Budescu D.V., Zwick R. Comparing the calibration and coherence of numerical and verbal probability judgments. Management Science 1993, 39:176-190. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.39.2.176.
32. Wallsten T.S., Fillenbaum S., Cox J.A. Base-rate effects on the interpretations of probability and frequency expressions. Journal of Memory and Language 1986, 25:571-587. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(86)90012-4.
33. Weber E.U. From subjective probabilities to decision weights: The effect of asymmetric loss functions on the evaluation of uncertain outcomes and events. Psychological Bulletin 1994, 115:228-242. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.228.
34. Weber E.U. Evidence-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: Why global warming does not scare us (yet). Climatic Change 2006, 77:103-120. doi: 10.1007/s10584-006-9060-3.
35. Weber E.U. What shapes our perceptions of climate change?. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 2010, 1:332-342. doi: 10.1002/wcc.41.
36. Weber E.U., Hilton D.J. Contextual effects in the interpretations of probability words: Perceived base rate and severity of events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1990, 16:781-789. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.16.4.781.
37. Whiteley L., Sahani M. Implicit knowledge of visual uncertainty guides decisions with asymmetric outcomes. Journal of Vision 2008, 8:1-15. doi: 10.1167/8.3.2.