IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v39y1993i2p176-190.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing the Calibration and Coherence of Numerical and Verbal Probability Judgments

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas S. Wallsten

    (Department of Psychology, CB# 3270, Davie Hall, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3270)

  • David V. Budescu

    (Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, Champaign, Illinois 61820)

  • Rami Zwick

    (Department of Marketing, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802-9976)

Abstract

Despite the common reliance on numerical probability estimates in decision research and decision analysis, there is considerable interest in the use of verbal probability expressions to communicate opinion. A method is proposed for obtaining and quantitatively evaluating verbal judgments in which each analyst uses a limited vocabulary that he or she has individually selected and scaled. An experiment compared this method to standard numerical responding under three different payoff conditions. Response mode and payoff never interacted. Probability scores and their components were virtually identical for the two response modes and for all payoff groups. Also, judgments of complementary events were essentially additive under all conditions. The two response modes differed in that the central response category was used more frequently in the numerical than the verbal case, while overconfidence was greater verbally than numerically. Response distributions and degrees of overconfidence were also affected by payoffs. Practical and theoretical implications are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas S. Wallsten & David V. Budescu & Rami Zwick, 1993. "Comparing the Calibration and Coherence of Numerical and Verbal Probability Judgments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(2), pages 176-190, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:39:y:1993:i:2:p:176-190
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.39.2.176
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.39.2.176
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.39.2.176?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
    ---><---

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:39:y:1993:i:2:p:176-190. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.