To what extent do politeness expectations shape risk perception? Even numerical probabilities are under their spell!

Acta Psychologica

Volumn 141, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 391-399

  Sirota, Miroslav ^a   Juanchich, Marie ^b  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b KINGSTON UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Face management; Likelihood communication; Numerical probability; Politeness; Verbal probability

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; FEMALE; FORECASTING; HUMAN; HUMAN RELATION; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LANGUAGE; MALE; MATHEMATICS; MIDDLE AGED; PERCEPTION; PERSONALITY; PROBABILITY; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; RISK; VERY ELDERLY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; COMMUNICATION; FEMALE; FORECASTING; HUMANS; INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS; LANGUAGE; MALE; MATHEMATICS; MIDDLE AGED; PERCEPTION; PERSONALITY; PROBABILITY; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; RISK; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84867636909     PISSN: 00016918     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.09.004     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Beach W.A., Metzger T. Claiming insufficient knowledge. Human Communication Research 1997, 23:562-588. 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00410.x.
2. 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.
3. Bonnefon J.-F., Feeney A., Villejoubert G. When some is actually all: Scalar inferences in face-threatening contexts. Cognition 2009, 112:249-258. 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.005.
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. Brown P., Levinson S. Politeness: Some universals in language usage 1987, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
6. 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.
7. Budescu D.V., Por H., Broomell S.B. Effective communication of uncertainty in the IPCC reports. Climatic Change 2012, 113:181-200. 10.1007/s10584-011-0330-3.
8. Budescu D.V., Weinberg S., Wallsten T.S. Decisions based on numerically and verbally expressed uncertainties. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 1988, 14:281-294. 10.1037/0096-1523.14.2.281.
9. Clark H.H. Using language 1996, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
10. Demeure V., Bonnefon J.-F., Raufaste E. Politeness and conditional reasoning: Interpersonal cues to the indirect suppression of deductive inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2009, 35:260-266. 10.1037/a0013799.
11. Dhami M.K., Wallsten T.S. Interpersonal comparison of subjective probabilities: Toward translating linguistic probabilities. Memory and Cognition 2005, 33:1057-1068.
12. 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.
13. Fischhoff B., Bruine de Bruin W. Fifty-fifty=50%?. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 1999, 12:149-163. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199906)12:2<149::AID-BDM314>3.0.CO;2-J.
14. Frederick S. Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives 2005, 19:25-42. 10.1257/089533005775196732.
15. Galesic M., Garcia-Retamero R., Gigerenzer G. Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: Overcoming low numeracy. Health Psychology 2009, 28:210-216. 10.1037/a0014474.
16. Garrod S., Pickering M.J. Why is conversation so easy?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2004, 8:8-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.10.016.
17. 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.
18. Harris A., Corner A., Hahn U. Estimating the probability of negative events. Cognition 2009, 110:51-64. 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.10.006.
19. Juanchich, M., & Sirota, M. submitted for publication. Do people really say it is "likely" when they believe it is only "possible"? Effect of politeness on risk communication. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making.
20. Juanchich M., Sirota M., Butler C.L. Effect of the perceived functions of linguistic risk quantifiers on risk perception, severity and decision making. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 2012, 118:72-81. 10.1016/j.obhdp. 2012.01.002.
21. Judd C.M., Kenny D.A., McClelland G.H. Estimating and testing mediation and moderation in within-participant designs. Psychological Methods 2001, 6:115-134. 10.1037//1082-989X.6.2.115.
22. Liberali J.M., Reyna V.F., Furlan S., Stein L.M., Pardo S.T. Individual differences in numeracy and cognitive reflection, with implications for biases and fallacies in probability judgment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 2011, 10.1002/bdm.752.
23. Lipkus I.M., Hollands J.G. The visual communication of risk. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs 1999, 25:149-163.
24. Lipkus I.M., Samsa G., Rimer B.K. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Medical Decision Making 2001, 21:37-44. 10.1177/0272989X0102100105.
25. Peters E., Västfjäll D., Slovic P., Mertz C.K., Mazzocco K., Dickert S. Numeracy and decision making. Psychological Science 2006, 17:407-413. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01720.x.
26. Piercey M.D. Motivated reasoning and verbal vs. numerical probability assessment: Evidence from an accounting context. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 2009, 108:330-341. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.05.004.
27. Pighin S., Bonnefon J.F. Facework and uncertain reasoning in health communication. Patient Education and Counseling 2011, 85:169-172.
28. Pighin S., Bonnefon J.F., Savadori L. Overcoming number numbness in prenatal risk communication. Prenatal Diagnosis 2011, 31:809-813.
29. Reyna V.F., Nelson W.L., Han P.K., Dieckmann N.F. How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychological Bulletin 2009, 135:943-973. 10.1136/bmj.38884.663102.AE.
30. Risen J.L., Gilovich T. Why people are reluctant to tempt fate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2008, 95:293-307. 10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.293.
31. Sedlmeier P., Hilton D.J. Improving judgment and decision making through communication and representation. Judgment and decision making as a skill 2011, 229-258. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 10.1017/CBO9781139015684.015. M.K. Dhami, A. Schlottmann, M.R. Waldmann (Eds.).
32. Sirota M., Juanchich M. Role of numeracy and cognitive reflection in Bayesian reasoning with natural frequencies. Studia Psychologica 2011, 53:151-161.
33. Teigen K.H., Brun W. Yes, but it is uncertain: Direction and communicative intention of verbal probabilistic terms. Acta Psychologica 1995, 88:233-258. 10.1016/0001-6918(93)E0071-9.
34. Teigen K.H., Brun W. Ambiguous probabilities: When does p=0.3 reflect a possibility, and when does it express a doubt?. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 2000, 13:345-362. 10.1002/1099-0771(200007/09)13:3<345::AID-BDM358>3.0.CO;2-U.
35. Toplak M.E., West R.F., Stanovich K.E. The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics and biases tasks. Memory & Cognition 2011, 39:1275-1289. 10.3758/s13421-011-0104-1.
36. 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.
37. Wallsten T.S., Fillenbaum S., Cox J.A. Base rate effects on the interpretation of probability and frequency expressions. Journal of Memory and Language 1986, 25:571-587. 10.1016/0749-596X(86)90012-4.
38. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.228.
39. 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. 10.1037/0096-1523.16.4.781.
40. Windschitl P.D., Weber E.U. The interpretation of "likely" depends on the context, but "70%" is 70%-Right? The influence of associative processes on perceived certainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1999, 25:1514-1533.
41. Windschitl P.D., Wells G.L. Measuring psychological uncertainty: Verbal versus numeric methods. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied 1996, 2:343-364. 10.1037//1076-898X.2.4.343.