IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v118y2012i1p72-81.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Juanchich, Marie
  • Sirota, Miroslav
  • Butler, Christina Lea

Abstract

When someone is told: “it is possible that you will lose your investment”, “possible” can be interpreted as plainly reflecting the speaker’s degree of certainty (i.e., likelihood-communication device) or as tactfully communicating the probable occurrence of losses (i.e., hearer-face-management device). We suggest that risk quantifiers can also serve the speaker’s interest by decreasing the chance of being blamed for an incorrect wrongful prediction (i.e., speaker-face-management device). In five experiments, we investigate how individuals interpret risk quantifiers and the effect of their interpretations on risk perception. Results show that speaker-face-management is the most frequent interpretation in both negative and positive outcome predictions, for different probability terms, and in different cultures. Results consistently show that device interpretation determines risk judgment, negativity perceptions and decision making. Results are discussed within the framework of politeness theory and implications for risk communication are reviewed.

Suggested Citation

  • Juanchich, Marie & Sirota, Miroslav & Butler, Christina Lea, 2012. "The perceived functions of linguistic risk quantifiers and their effect on risk, negativity perception and decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 72-81.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:118:y:2012:i:1:p:72-81
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.01.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597812000180
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.01.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Erev, Ido & Cohen, Brent L., 1990. "Verbal versus numerical probabilities: Efficiency, biases, and the preference paradox," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 1-18, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:3:p:232-240 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Marie Juanchich & Miroslav Sirota, 2016. "How to improve people's interpretation of probabilities of precipitation," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(3), pages 388-404, March.
    3. Miroslav Sirota & Marie Juanchich, 2015. "A direct and comprehensive test of two postulates of politeness theory applied to uncertainty communication," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(3), pages 232-240, May.
    4. Marco Castellani & Linda Alengoz & Niccolò Casnici & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2022. "A role-game laboratory experiment on the influence of country prospects reports on investment decisions in two artificial organizational settings," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 21(1), pages 121-149, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:363-393 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Hovanov, Nikolai & Yudaeva, Maria & Hovanov, Kirill, 2009. "Multicriteria estimation of probabilities on basis of expert non-numeric, non-exact and non-complete knowledge," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 195(3), pages 857-863, June.
    3. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim W. F. Passchier & Nanne N. K. De Vries, 2009. "Probability Information in Risk Communication: A Review of the Research Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 267-287, February.
    4. Honekopp, Johannes, 2003. "Precision of probability information and prominence of outcomes: A description and evaluation of decisions under uncertainty," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 124-138, January.
    5. Dickerson, Andy & Green, Francis, 2012. "Fears and realisations of employment insecurity," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 198-210.
    6. Robert N. Collins & David R. Mandel, 2019. "Cultivating credibility with probability words and numbers," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(6), pages 683-695, November.
    7. Teigen, Karl Halvor & Brun, Wibecke, 1999. "The Directionality of Verbal Probability Expressions: Effects on Decisions, Predictions, and Probabilistic Reasoning, , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 155-190, November.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:2:p:202-211 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Piercey, M. David, 2009. "Motivated reasoning and verbal vs. numerical probability assessment: Evidence from an accounting context," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 330-341, March.
    10. Andrea D. Gurmankin & Jonathan Baron & Katrina Armstrong, 2004. "The Effect of Numerical Statements of Risk on Trust and Comfort with Hypothetical Physician Risk Communication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(3), pages 265-271, June.
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:6:p:683-695 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Michael Dietrich, 2010. "Efficiency and profitability: a panel data analysis of UK manufacturing firms, 1993-2007," Working Papers 2010003, The University of Sheffield, Department of Economics, revised Jan 2010.
    13. Jean Baratgin & Guy Politzer, 2006. "Is the mind Bayesian? The case for agnosticism," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 5(1), pages 1-38, June.
    14. de Bruin, Wandi Bruine & Fischhoff, Baruch & Millstein, Susan G. & Halpern-Felsher, Bonnie L., 2000. "Verbal and Numerical Expressions of Probability: "It's a Fifty-Fifty Chance"," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 115-131, January.
    15. David R. Mandel & Daniel Irwin, 2021. "Facilitating sender-receiver agreement in communicated probabilities: Is it best to use words, numbers or both?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(2), pages 363-393, March.
    16. Jessop, Alan, 2014. "IMP: A decision aid for multiattribute evaluation using imprecise weight estimates," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 18-29.
    17. Bradley J. Stastny & Paul E. Lehner, 2018. "Comparative evaluation of the forecast accuracy of analysis reports and a prediction market," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(2), pages 202-211, March.
    18. Tian Zhou‐Richter & Mark J. Browne & Helmut Gründl, 2010. "Don't They Care? Or, Are They Just Unaware? Risk Perception and the Demand for Long‐Term Care Insurance," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 77(4), pages 715-747, December.
    19. Charles F. Manski, 2018. "Survey Measurement of Probabilistic Macroeconomic Expectations: Progress and Promise," NBER Macroeconomics Annual, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(1), pages 411-471.
    20. Huizingh, Eelko K. R. E. & Vrolijk, Hans C. J., 1997. "A Comparison of Verbal and Numerical Judgments in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 237-247, June.
    21. William A. Boettcher III, 1995. "Context, Methods, Numbers, And Words," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 39(3), pages 561-583, September.
    22. Vivianne H.M. Visschers, 2017. "Judgments under uncertainty: evaluations of univocal, ambiguous and conflicting probability information," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(2), pages 237-255, February.
    23. Noel T. Brewer & Janice P. Tzeng & Sarah E. Lillie & Alrick S. Edwards & Jeffrey M. Peppercorn & Barbara K. Rimer, 2009. "Health Literacy and Cancer Risk Perception: Implications for Genomic Risk Communication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(2), pages 157-166, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:118:y:2012:i:1:p:72-81. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.