The perceived functions of linguistic risk quantifiers and their effect on risk, negativity perception and decision making

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

Volumn 118, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 72-81

  Juanchich, Marie ^a   Sirota, Miroslav ^b   Butler, Christina Lea ^a  

^a KINGSTON UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Hearer face management; Likelihood communication; Politeness; Probability terms; Risk perception; Speaker face management; Verbal probabilities

Indexed keywords

EID: 84858753714     PISSN: 07495978     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.01.002     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Bar-Hillel M., Budescu D.V. The elusive wishful thinking effect. Thinking and Reasoning 1995, 1:71-103. 10.1080/13546789508256906.
2. Bonnefon, J. F., & Villejoubert, G. (2005). Communicating likelihood and managing face: Can we say it is probable when we know it to be certain? In B. G. Bara, L. Barsalou, & M. Buciarelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th annual conference of the cognitive science society.
3. Bonnefon J.F., Feeney A., De Neys W. The risk of polite misunderstandings. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2011, 20:321-324. 10.1177/0963721411418472.
4. 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. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01776.x.
5. Brislin R. Understanding culture's influence on behavior 1993, Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Fort Worth.
6. Brown P., Levinson S. Politeness: Some universals in language usage 1987, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
7. Budescu D.V., Broomell S.B., Por H.-H. Improving communication of uncertainty in the IPCC reports. Psychological Science 2009, 20:299-308. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02284.x.
8. Budescu D.V., Broomell S.B., Por H.-H. Effective communication of uncertainty in the IPCC reports. Climate Change 2011, [Advance online publication]. 10.1007/s10584-011-0330-3.
9. Eelen G. A critique of politeness theories 2001, St. Jerome's Press, Manchester, UK.
10. Erev I., Cohen B.L. Verbal versus numerical probabilities: Efficiency, biases, and the preference paradox. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1990, 45:1-18. 10.1016/0749-5978(90)90002-Q.
11. Goffman E. Interaction ritual - Essays on face-to-face behavior 1967, Anchor Books, Garden City, NY.
12. Halberg A.-M., Teigen K.H., Fostervold K.I. Maximum vs. minimum values: Preferences of speakers and listeners for upper and lower limit estimates. Acta Psychologica 2009, 132:228-239. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.07.007.
13. Harris A.J.L., Corner A. Communicating environmental risks: Clarifying the severity effect in interpretations of verbal probability expressions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2011, 37:1571-1578. 10.1037/a0024195.
14. Harris A.J.L., Corner A., Hahn U. Estimating the probability of negative events. Cognition 2009, 110:51-64. 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.10.006.
15. Hofstede G. Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations 2001, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
16. Holtgraves T., Yang J. Politeness as universal: Cross-cultural perceptions of request strategies and inferences based on their use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1990, 59:719-729. 10.1037//0022-3514.59.4.719.
17. Juanchich, M., Sirota, M. (2011). To what extent do politeness expectations shape risk perception? Even numerical probabilities are under the spell! Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. submitted for publication.
18. Keren G., Teigen K.H. Why is p=90 better than p=70? Preference for definitive predictions by lay consumers of probability judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2001, 8:191-202.
19. Mathers, C., Smith, A., & Concha, M. (2000). Global burden of hearing loss in the year 2000. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/bod_hearingloss.pdf.
20. Morphy H., Dunn K.M., Lewis M., Boardman H.F., Croft P.R. Epidemiology of insomnia: A longitudinal study in a UK population. Sleep 2007, 30:274-280.
21. Patt A.G., Schrag D.P. Using specific language to describe risk and probability. Climatic Change 2003, 61:17-30.
22. Pighin S., Bonnefon J.F. Facework and uncertain reasoning in health communication. Patient Education and Counseling 2011, 85:169-172. 10.1016/j.pec.2010.09.005.
23. Teigen K.H., Nikolaisen M.I. Incorrect estimates and false reports: How framing modifies truth. Thinking & Reasoning 2009, 15:268-293. 10.1080/13546780903020999.
24. 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. 10.1037/a0018144.
25. Wallsten T.S., Budescu D.V. A review of human linguistic probability processing: General principles and empirical evidence. The Knowledge Engineering Review 1995, 10:43-62.
26. Wallsten T.S., Budescu D.V., Zwick R., Kemp S.M. Preferences and reasons for communicating probabilistic information in verbal or numerical terms. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 1993, 31:135-138.
27. 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. 10.1037//0033-2909.115.2.228.
28. 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.
29. Witteman C.L.M., Renooij S. Evaluation of a verbal-numerical probability scale. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 2003, 33:117-131. 10.1016/S0888-613X(02)00151-2.
30. Witteman C.L.M., Renooij S., Koele P. Medicine in words and numbers: A cross-sectional survey comparing probability assessment scales. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2007, 7:13. 10.1186/1472-6947-7-13.