IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v19y2016i3p388-404.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to improve people's interpretation of probabilities of precipitation

Author

Listed:
  • Marie Juanchich
  • Miroslav Sirota

Abstract

Most research into uncertainty focuses on how people estimate probability magnitude. By contrast, this paper focuses on how people interpret the concept of probability and why they often misinterpret it. In a weather forecast context, we hypothesised that the absence of an explicit reference class and the polysemy of the percentage format are causing incorrect probability interpretations, and test two interventions to help people make better probability interpretation. In two studies ( N = 1337), we demonstrate that most people from the UK and the US do not interpret probabilities of precipitation correctly. The explicit mention of the reference class helped people to interpret probabilities of precipitation better when the target area was explicit; but this was not the case when it was not specified. Furthermore, the polysemy of the percentage format is not likely to cause these misinterpretations, since a non-polysemous format (e.g. verbal probability) did not facilitate a correct probability interpretation in our studies. A Bayes factor analysis supported both of these conclusions. We discuss theoretical and applied implications of our findings.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:19:y:2016:i:3:p:388-404
    DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2014.983945
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669877.2014.983945
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669877.2014.983945?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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Marcel A L M van Assen & Robbie C M van Aert & Michèle B Nuijten & Jelte M Wicherts, 2014. "Why Publishing Everything Is More Effective than Selective Publishing of Statistically Significant Results," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(1), pages 1-5, January.
    4. Gerd Gigerenzer & Ralph Hertwig & Eva Van Den Broek & Barbara Fasolo & Konstantinos V. Katsikopoulos, 2005. "“A 30% Chance of Rain Tomorrow”: How Does the Public Understand Probabilistic Weather Forecasts?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 623-629, June.
    5. 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.
    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. Lackes, Richard & Siepermann, Markus & Vetter, Georg, 2020. "What drives decision makers to follow or ignore forecasting tools - A game based analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 315-322.
    2. Paolo Figini & Simona Cicognani & Lorenzo Zirulia, 2023. "Booking in the Rain. Testing the Impact of Public Information on Prices," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 9(3), pages 1329-1364, November.

    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. 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).
    2. 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.
    3. P A Hancock & William G Volante, 2020. "Quantifying the qualities of language," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-27, May.
    4. Dwight C. K. Tse & Jeanne Nakamura & Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, 2022. "Flow Experiences Across Adulthood: Preliminary Findings on the Continuity Hypothesis," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 23(6), pages 2517-2540, August.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:6:p:683-695 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Sven Gruener, 2024. "Determinants of Gullibility to Misinformation: A Study of Climate Change, COVID-19 and Artificial Intelligence," Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, , vol. 36(1), pages 58-78, January.
    9. Dubard Barbosa, Saulo & Fayolle, Alain & Smith, Brett R., 2019. "Biased and overconfident, unbiased but going for it: How framing and anchoring affect the decision to start a new venture," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 528-557.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:363-393 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. 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.
    12. Carmen Keller & Michael Siegrist & Heinz Gutscher, 2006. "The Role of the Affect and Availability Heuristics in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 631-639, June.
    13. Mike Farjam & Olexandr Nikolaychuk & Giangiacomo Bravo, 2019. "Investing into climate change mitigation despite the risk of failure," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 154(3), pages 453-460, June.
    14. Caroline M. Vass & Niall J. Davison & Geert Stichele & Katherine Payne, 2020. "A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words: The Role of Survey Training Materials in Stated-Preference Studies," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(2), pages 163-173, April.
    15. 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.
    16. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller, 2011. "Natural frequencies and Bayesian reasoning: the impact of formal education and problem context," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(9), pages 1039-1055, October.
    17. Saima Ghazal & Edward T. Cokely & Rocio Garcia-Retamero, 2014. "Predicting biases in very highly educated samples: Numeracy and metacognition," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(1), pages 15-34, January.
    18. 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.
    19. Christoph Werner & Tim Bedford & John Quigley, 2018. "Sequential Refined Partitioning for Probabilistic Dependence Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(12), pages 2683-2702, December.
    20. Ville A. Satopää & Marat Salikhov & Philip E. Tetlock & Barbara Mellers, 2021. "Bias, Information, Noise: The BIN Model of Forecasting," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(12), pages 7599-7618, December.
    21. Paolo Figini & Simona Cicognani & Lorenzo Zirulia, 2023. "Booking in the Rain. Testing the Impact of Public Information on Prices," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 9(3), pages 1329-1364, November.
    22. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:1:p:7-20 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Alan J. Card & James R. Ward & P. John Clarkson, 2014. "Trust‐Level Risk Evaluation and Risk Control Guidance in the NHS East of England," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(8), pages 1469-1481, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:jriskr:v:19:y:2016:i:3:p:388-404. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    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.