IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v171y2022ics0749597822000504.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What is a “likely” amount? Representative (modal) values are considered likely even when their probabilities are low

Author

Listed:
  • Teigen, Karl Halvor
  • Juanchich, Marie
  • Løhre, Erik

Abstract

Research on verbal probabilities and standard scales issued by national and international authorities suggest that only events with probabilities above 60% should be labelled “likely”. We find, however, that when people apply this term to continuous variables, like expected costs, it describes the most likely (modal) outcome or interval, regardless of actual probabilities, which may be quite small. This was demonstrated in six studies in which lay participants (N = 2,228) were shown probability distributions from various domains and asked to generate or to select “likely” outcome intervals. Despite having numeric and graphically displayed information available, participants judged central, low-probability segments as “likely” (as opposed to equal or larger segments in the tails) and subsequently overestimated the chances of these outcomes. We conclude that high-probability interpretations of “likely” are only valid for binary outcomes but not for distributions of graded variables or multiple outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Teigen, Karl Halvor & Juanchich, Marie & Løhre, Erik, 2022. "What is a “likely” amount? Representative (modal) values are considered likely even when their probabilities are low," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:171:y:2022:i:c:s0749597822000504
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104166
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597822000504
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104166?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. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:3:p:345-364 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Michael Theil, 2002. "The role of translations of verbal into numerical probability expressions in risk management: a meta-analysis," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(2), pages 177-186, April.
    3. Riege, Anine H. & Teigen, Karl Halvor, 2013. "Additivity neglect in probability estimates: Effects of numeracy and response format," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 41-52.
    4. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Kuhn, Michael A., 2012. "Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 1-8.
    5. Teigen, Karl Halvor, 2001. "When Equal Chances = Good Chances: Verbal Probabilities and the Equiprobability Effect," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 77-108, May.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:3:p:232-240 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:363-393 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. 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.
    9. repec:wrk:wrkemf:22 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Isaac M. Lipkus & Greg Samsa & Barbara K. Rimer, 2001. "General Performance on a Numeracy Scale among Highly Educated Samples," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 37-44, February.
    11. Yasmina Okan & Eva Janssen & Mirta Galesic & Erika A. Waters, 2019. "Using the Short Graph Literacy Scale to Predict Precursors of Health Behavior Change," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(3), pages 183-195, April.
    12. David V. Budescu & Han-Hui Por & Stephen B. Broomell & Michael Smithson, 2014. "The interpretation of IPCC probabilistic statements around the world," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 4(6), pages 508-512, June.
    13. Bent Flyvbjerg, 2014. "What You Should Know About Megaprojects, and Why: An Overview," Papers 1409.0003, arXiv.org.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:6:p:683-695 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Du, Ning & Budescu, David V. & Shelly, Marjorie K. & Omer, Thomas C., 2011. "The appeal of vague financial forecasts," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 114(2), pages 179-189, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items 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. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:6:p:683-695 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:363-393 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. 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.
    4. Riege, Anine H. & Teigen, Karl Halvor, 2013. "Additivity neglect in probability estimates: Effects of numeracy and response format," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 41-52.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Michael D. Gerst & Melissa A. Kenney & Irina Feygina, 2021. "Improving the usability of climate indicator visualizations through diagnostic design principles," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(3), pages 1-22, June.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Marie-Anne Durand & Renata W Yen & James O’Malley & Glyn Elwyn & Julien Mancini, 2020. "Graph literacy matters: Examining the association between graph literacy, health literacy, and numeracy in a Medicaid eligible population," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-14, November.
    11. A. Kause & W. Bruine de Bruin & J. Persson & H. Thorén & L. Olsson & A. Wallin & S. Dessai & N. Vareman, 2022. "Confidence levels and likelihood terms in IPCC reports: a survey of experts from different scientific disciplines," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 173(1), pages 1-18, July.
    12. Fasolo, Barbara & Bana e Costa, Carlos A., 2014. "Tailoring value elicitation to decision makers' numeracy and fluency: Expressing value judgments in numbers or words," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 83-90.
    13. Diane Coyle & Marianne Sensier, 2020. "The imperial treasury: appraisal methodology and regional economic performance in the UK," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(3), pages 283-295, March.
    14. Ederer, Florian & Stremitzer, Alexander, 2017. "Promises and expectations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 161-178.
    15. Schreiner, Lena & Madlener, Reinhard, 2022. "Investing in power grid infrastructure as a flexibility option: A DSGE assessment for Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    16. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:1:p:34-40 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. David R. Mandel & Daniel Irwin, 2021. "Tracking accuracy of strategic intelligence forecasts: Findings from a long‐term Canadian study," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(3-4), September.
    18. Fuchsman, Dillon & McGee, Josh B. & Zamarro, Gema, 2023. "Teachers’ willingness to pay for retirement benefits: A national stated preferences experiment," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    19. Kazi Iqbal & Asad Islam & John List & Vy Nguyen, 2021. "Myopic Loss Aversion and Investment Decisions: From the Laboratory to the Field," Framed Field Experiments 000730, The Field Experiments Website.
    20. Alexander Budzier & Bent Flyvbjerg & Andi Garavaglia & Andreas Leed, 2019. "Quantitative Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis of Nuclear Waste Storage," Papers 1901.11123, arXiv.org.
    21. Jonas Schmidt & Tammo H. A. Bijmolt, 2020. "Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: a meta-analysis of the hypothetical bias," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 499-518, May.
    22. Fuchsman, Dillon & McGee, Josh & Zamarro, Gema, 2022. "Teachers’ Knowledge and Preparedness for Retirement: Results from a Nationally Representative Teacher Survey," Working Papers 21-5, Sinquefield Center for Applied Economic Research, Saint Louis University.
    23. Francesco Di Maddaloni & Roya Derakhshan, 2019. "A Leap from Negative to Positive Bond. A Step towards Project Sustainability," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-19, June.

    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:171:y:2022:i:c:s0749597822000504. 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.