IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2502.06241.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Words or Numbers? How Framing Uncertainties Affects Risk Assessment and Decision-Making

Author

Listed:
  • Robin Bodenberger
  • Kirsten Thommes

Abstract

The communication of uncertainties needs to be as precise as possible to enable the receiver of risk-messages to adapt their behavior appropriately. However, the communication of uncertainties comes with its own set of challenges as most senders prefer to communicate uncertainty through verbal probability phrases (e.g., likely) - a communication form characterized by its ambiguity and (framed) directionality. While it is well known that receivers often do not translate such phrases into the numerical probability intended by the sender, it is less clear how this discrepancy influences subsequent behavioral actions. By implementing a laboratory experiment, we show that individuals value uncertain options with medium to high likelihoods significantly lower when uncertainty is communicated verbally rather than numerically. This effect may lead to less rational decisions under verbal communication, particularly at high likelihoods. Those results remain consistent even if individuals translate verbal uncertainty correctly into the associate numerical uncertainty, implying that a biased behavioral response is not only induced by mistranslations. Instead, ambiguity about the exact meaning of a verbal phrase interferes with decision-making even beyond mere mistranslations. These findings tie in with previous research on ambiguity aversion, which has predominantly operationalized ambiguity through numerical ranges rather than verbal phrases. We conclude that managers and firms should carefully consider the impact of uncertainty framing on employees' decision-making and customer purchasing behavior, opting for numerical probabilities when possible.

Suggested Citation

  • Robin Bodenberger & Kirsten Thommes, 2025. "Words or Numbers? How Framing Uncertainties Affects Risk Assessment and Decision-Making," Papers 2502.06241, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2025.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2502.06241
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2502.06241
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lilleholt, Lau, 2019. "Cognitive ability and risk aversion: A systematic review and meta analysis," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(3), pages 234-279, May.
    2. Cokely, Edward T. & Galesic, Mirta & Schulz, Eric & Ghazal, Saima & Garcia-Retamero, Rocio, 2012. "Measuring Risk Literacy: The Berlin Numeracy Test," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 25-47, January.
    3. Collins, Robert N. & Mandel, David R., 2019. "Cultivating credibility with probability words and numbers," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(6), pages 683-695, November.
    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. Villanova, Daniel & Pandelaere, Mario, 2024. "A Numeracy-Task interaction model of perceived differences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    2. Gruener, Sven, 2021. "Susceptibility to misinformation: a study of climate change, Covid-19, and artificial intelligence," SocArXiv x8efq_v1, Center for Open Science.
    3. van Dolder, Dennie & Vandenbroucke, Jurgen, 2024. "Behavioral risk profiling: Measuring loss aversion of individual investors," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2502.06241. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.