The measurement of subjective probability: Evaluating the sensitivity and accuracy of various scales

Risk Analysis

Volumn 33, Issue 10, 2013, Pages 1812-1828

  Haase, Niels ^a   Renkewitz, Frank ^a   Betsch, Cornelia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ERFURT   (Germany)

Author keywords

Context dependency; Goodness of fit; Measurement; Subjective probability

Indexed keywords

AGGREGATED INFORMATION; CONTEXT DEPENDENCY; GOODNESS OF FIT; GRAPHICAL PRESENTATIONS; OBJECTIVE PROBABILITIES; PROBABILITY INFORMATIONS; ROOT MEAN SQUARE DEVIATIONS; SUBJECTIVE PROBABILITY;

MEASUREMENTS; RISK ASSESSMENT;

PROBABILITY;

CORRELATION; DEPENDENCY; PROBABILITY; RISK; RISK ASSESSMENT; STANDARD (REFERENCE);

EID: 84885426841     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/risa.12025     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Yates JF, Stone ER. The RISK construct. Pp. 1-25 in Yates JF (ed.). RISK-Taking Behavior. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 1991.
2. van der Pligt J. RISK perception and self-protective behavior. European Psychologist, 1996; 1:34-43.
3. Weinstein ND. Testing four competing theories of health-related behavior. Health Psychology, 1993; 12:324-333.
4. Diefenbach MA, Weinstein ND, O'Reilly J. Scales for assessing perceptions of health related susceptibility. Health Education Research, 1993; 8:181-192.
5. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Byram S, Fischhoff B, Welch HG. A new scale for assessing perceptions of chance: A validation study. Medical Decision Making, 2000; 20:298-307.
6. Eibner F, Barth J, Helmes A, Bengel J. Variations in subjective breast cancer RISK estimations when using different measurements for assessing breast cancer RISK perception. Health, RISK & Society, 2006; 8:197-210.
7. Windschitl PD, Wells GL. Measuring psychological uncertainty: Verbal versus numeric methods. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1996; 2:343-364.
8. Budescu DV, Wallsten TS. Consistency in interpretation of probabilistic phrases. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1985; 36:391-405.
9. Budescu DV, Weinberg S, Wallsten TS. Decisions based on numerically and verbally expressed uncertainties. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1988; 14:281-294.
10. Druzdel MJ. Verbal Uncertainty Expressions: Literature Review. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, 1989. Technical Report No.: CMU-EPP-1990-03-02. Supported by the National Science Foundation. Available from: http://www.pitt.edu/~druzdzel/psfiles/verbal.pdf, Accessed February 4, 2013.
11. Fischer K, Jungermann H. ["Ask your doctor or pharmacist about RISKs and side-effects": Communication of uncertainty in a health context]. Zeitschrift fur Gesundheitspsychologie, 2003; 11:87-98.
12. Wanke M. Conversational norms and the interpretation of vague quantifiers. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2002; 16:301-307.
13. Wallsten TS, Budescu DV, Erev I. Understanding and using linguistic uncertainties. Acta Psychologica, 1988; 68:39-52.
14. Teigen KH, Brun W. The directionality of verbal probability expressions: Effects on decisions, predictions, and probabilistic reasoning. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1999; 80:155-190.
15. Weinstein ND, Kwitel A, McCaul KD, Magnan RE, Gerrard M, Gibbons FX. RISK perceptions: Assessment and relationship to influenza vaccination. Health Psychology, 2007; 26:146-151.
16. Borgida E, Nisbett RE. The differential impact of abstract vs. concrete information on decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1977; 7:258-271.
17. Brosius HB, Bathelt A. The utility of exemplars in persuasive communications. Communication Research, 1994; 21:48-78.
18. Obrecht NA, Chapman GB, Gelman R. An encounter frequency account of how experience affects likelihood estimation. Memory & Cognition, 2009; 37:632-643.
19. Hinyard LJ, Kreuter MW. Using narrative communication as a tool for health behavior change: A conceptual, theoretical, and empirical overview. Health Education & Behavior, 2007; 34:777-792.
20. de Wit JB, Das E, Vet R. What works best: Objective statistics or a personal testimonial? An assessment of the persuasive effects of different types of message evidence on RISK perception. Health Psychology, 2008; 27:110-115.
21. Betsch C, Ulshofer C, Renkewitz F, Betsch T. The influence of narrative v. statistical information on perceiving vaccination RISKs. Medical Decision Making, 2011; 31:742-753.
22. Ubel PA, Jepson C, Baron J. The inclusion of patient testimonials in decision aids: Effects on treatment choices. Medical Decision Making, 2001; 21:60-68.
23. Fagerlin A, Wang C, Ubel PA. Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people's health care decisions: Is a picture worth a thousand statistics? Medical Decision Making, 2005; 25:398-405.
24. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Black WC, Welch HG. Women's perceptions of breast cancer RISK: How you ask matters. Medical Decision Making, 1999; 19:221-229.
25. Schapira MM, Davids SL, McAuliffe TL, Natting AB. Agreement between scales in the measurement of breast cancer RISK perceptions. RISK Analysis, 2004; 24:665-673.
26. Hasher L, Zacks RT. Automatic and effortful processes in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1979; 108:356-388.
27. Hertwig R, Pachur T, Kurzenhauser S. Judgments of RISK frequencies: Test of possible cognitive mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2005; 31:621-642.
28. Windschitl PD. Judging the accuracy of a likelihood judgment: The case of smoking RISK. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2002; 15:19-35.
29. Couper MP, Tourangeau R, Conrad FG, Singer E. Evaluating the effectiveness of visual analog scales: A web experiment. Social Science Computer Review, 2006; 24:227-245.
30. Birnbaum MH. How to show that 9 > 221: Collect judgments in a between-subjects design. Psychological Methods, 1999; 4:243-249.
31. Parducci A. Category judgment: A range-frequency model. Psychological Review, 1965; 72:407-418.
32. Birnbaum MH. Using contextual effects to derive psychophysical scales. Perception & Psychophysics, 1974; 15:89-96.
33. Varey AV, Mellers BA, Birnbaum MH. Judgments of proportions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1990; 16:613-625.
34. Wedell DH, Parducci A. The category effect in social judgment: Experimental ratings of happiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1988; 55:341-356.
35. Schwarz N, Wanke M. Experiential and contextual heuristics in frequency judgment: Ease of recall and response scales. Pp. 89-108 in Sedlmeier P, Betsch T (eds). Frequency Processing and Cognition. Oxford, UK: University Press, 2002.
36. Verplanken B. The effect of catastrophe potential on the interpretation of numerical probabilities of the occurrence of hazards. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1997; 27:1453-1467.
37. Harris AJ, Corner A, Hahn U. Estimating the probability of negative events. Cognition, 2009; 110:51-64.
38. Pruitt DG, Hoge RD. Strength of the relationship between the value of an event and its subjective probability as a function of method of measurement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1965; 69:483-489.
39. Hasher L, Zacks RT. Frequency processing: A twenty-five year perspective. Pp. 21-36 in Sedlmeier P, Betsch T (eds). Frequency Processing and Cognition. Oxford, UK: University Press, 2002.
40. Erev I, Wallsten TS, Budescu DV. Simultaneous over- and underconfidence: The role of error in judgment processes. Psychological Review, 1994; 101:519-527.
41. Fiedler K, Armbruster T. Two halfs may be more than one whole: Category-split effects on frequency illusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1994; 66:633-645.
42. Hawley ST, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel P, Jancovic A, Lucas T, Fagerlin A. The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices. Patient Education and Counseling, 2008; 73:448-455.
43. Hurd MD, McGarry K. Evaluation of the subjective probabilities of survival in the health and retirement study. Journal of Human Resources, 1995; 30:S268-S292.
44. Viscusi WK, Hakes JK. RISK ratings that do not measure probabilities. Journal of RISK Research, 2003; 6:23-43.
45. Gigerenzer G, Hoffrage U. How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instructions: Frequency formats. Psychological Review, 1995; 102:684-704.
46. Cosmides L, Tooby J. Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty. Cognition, 1996; 58:1-73.
47. Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Jankovic A, Derry HA, Smith DM. Measuring numeracy without a math test: Development of the subjective numeracy scale. Medical Decision Making, 2007; 27:672-680.
48. Rapoport A, Wallsten TS, Cox JA. Direct and indirect scaling of membership functions of probability phrases. Mathematical Modelling, 1987; 9:397-417.
49. Wallsten TS, Budescu DV. A review of human linguistic probability processing: General principles and empirical evidence. Knowledge Engineering Review, 1995; 10:43-62.
50. Wallsten TS, Budescu DV, Rapoport A, Zwick R, Forsyth B. Measuring the vague meanings of probability terms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1986; 115:348-365.
51. Fiedler K. Beware of samples! A cognitive-ecological sampling approach to judgment biases. Psychological Review, 2000; 107:659-676.
52. Hilbig BE, Glockner A. Yes, they can! Appropriate weighting of small probabilities as a function of information acquisition. Acta Psychologica, 2011; 138:390-396.
53. Borland R. What do people's estimates of smoking related RISK mean? Psychology and Health, 1997; 12:513-521.
54. Reyna VF. A new intuitionism: Meaning, memory, and development in fuzzy-trace theory. Judgment and Decision Making, 2012; 7:332-359.
55. Reyna VF, Hamilton AJ. The importance of memory in informed consent for surgical RISK. Medical Decision Making, 2001; 21:152-155.
56. Reyna VF. How people make decisions that involve RISK: A dual-process approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2004; 13:60-66.
57. Reyna VF, Brainerd CJ. Numeracy, ratio bias, and denominator neglect in judgments of RISK and probability. Learning and Individual Differences, 2008; 18:89-107.