IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v121y2013i1p118-128.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Context affects the interpretation of low but not high numerical probabilities: A hypothesis testing account of subjective probability

Author

Listed:
  • Bilgin, Baler
  • Brenner, Lyle

Abstract

Low numerical probabilities tend to be directionally ambiguous, meaning they can be interpreted either positively, suggesting the occurrence of the target event, or negatively, suggesting its non-occurrence. High numerical probabilities, however, are typically interpreted positively. We argue that the greater directional ambiguity of low numerical probabilities may make them more susceptible than high probabilities to contextual influences. Results from five experiments supported this premise, with perceived base rate affecting the interpretation of an event’s numerical posterior probability more when it was low than high. The effect is consistent with a confirmatory hypothesis testing process, with the relevant perceived base rate suggesting the directional hypothesis which people then test in a confirmatory manner.

Suggested Citation

  • Bilgin, Baler & Brenner, Lyle, 2013. "Context affects the interpretation of low but not high numerical probabilities: A hypothesis testing account of subjective probability," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 118-128.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:121:y:2013:i:1:p:118-128
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.01.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597813000174
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.01.004?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. 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.
    2. Joao L. Becker & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1987. "Lottery Dependent Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(11), pages 1367-1382, November.
    3. Chapman, Gretchen B. & Johnson, Eric J., 1999. "Anchoring, Activation, and the Construction of Values, , , , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 115-153, August.
    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. 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.
    2. Tobias Heinrich & Christopher Witko, 2021. "Technology‐Induced Job Loss and the Prioritization of Economic Problems in the Mass Public," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(2), pages 164-179, March.
    3. Posavac, Steven S. & Ratchford, Mark & Bollen, Nicolas P.B. & Sanbonmatsu, David M., 2019. "Premature infatuation and commitment in individual investing decisions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 245-259.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:6:p:683-695 is not listed on IDEAS

    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. Jing-Yi Chen & Ming-Hui Wang, 2023. "A Study on Real Estate Purchase Decisions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-21, March.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:1:p:41-50 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Noel T. Brewer & Sarah E. Lillie & William K. Hallman, 2006. "Why People Believe They Were Exposed to Biological or Chemical Warfare: A Survey of Gulf War Veterans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 337-345, April.
    4. Kevin Bauer & Andrej Gill, 2024. "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Algorithmic Assessments, Transparency, and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(1), pages 226-248, March.
    5. Luchini, Stéphane & Watson, Verity, 2013. "Uncertainty and framing in a valuation task," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 204-214.
    6. Štěpán Bahník, 2021. "Anchoring without scale distortion," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(1), pages 131-141, January.
    7. Sangsuk Yoon & Nathan M. Fong & Angelika Dimoka, 2019. "The robustness of anchoring effects on preferential judgments," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(4), pages 470-487, July.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:363-393 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine & Zacharias Maniadis, 2012. "On the Robustness of Anchoring Effects in WTP and WTA Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(2), pages 131-145, May.
    10. Greg Fischer & Dean Karlan & Margaret McConnell & Pia Raffler, 2014. "To Charge or Not to Charge: Evidence from a Health Products Experiment in Uganda," Working Papers 1041, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    11. Thorsteinson, Todd J. & Breier, Jennifer & Atwell, Anna & Hamilton, Catherine & Privette, Monica, 2008. "Anchoring effects on performance judgments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(1), pages 29-40, September.
    12. Gebhard Geiger, 2012. "Multi-attribute non-expected utility," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 263-292, July.
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:1:p:131-141 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. David Hirshleifer, 2001. "Investor Psychology and Asset Pricing," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(4), pages 1533-1597, August.
    15. Han Bleichrodt & Ulrich Schmidt, 2002. "A Context-Dependent Model of the Gambling Effect," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(6), pages 802-812, June.
    16. Birnbaum, Michael H., 2004. "Tests of rank-dependent utility and cumulative prospect theory in gambles represented by natural frequencies: Effects of format, event framing, and branch splitting," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 40-65, September.
    17. Lorko, Matej & Servátka, Maroš & Zhang, Le, 2019. "Anchoring in project duration estimation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 49-65.
    18. William J. Matthews, 2011. "What would judgment and decision making research be like if we took a Bayesian approach to hypothesis testing?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 843-856, December.
    19. 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.
    20. Ortiz, Jose M. & Teixeira, Lucas I. & Falcão, Natália N.L. & Soki, Erika A. & Almeida, Raquel M., 2024. "Information simplification and default choices improve financial decisions: A credit card statement experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    21. Markus Spiwoks & Zulia Gubaydullina, 2020. "The Magic of Figures: Anchoring and Interferences," Journal of Finance and Investment Analysis, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 9(3), pages 1-2.
    22. Mussweiler, Thomas & Strack, Fritz, 2001. "The Semantics of Anchoring," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 234-255, November.
    23. Fochmann, Martin & Müller, Nadja & Overesch, Michael, 2018. "Less cheating? The effects of prefilled forms on compliance behavior," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 227, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.

    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:121:y:2013:i:1:p:118-128. 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.