IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/r/eee/jobhdp/v80y1999i2p155-190.html
   My bibliography  Save this item

The Directionality of Verbal Probability Expressions: Effects on Decisions, Predictions, and Probabilistic Reasoning, , ,

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as


Cited by:

  1. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:3:p:232-240 is not listed on IDEAS
  2. Dawn Liu Holford & Marie Juanchich & Tom Foulsham & Miroslav Sirota & Alasdair D. F. Clarke, 2021. "Eye-tracking evidence for fixation asymmetries in verbal and numerical quantifier processing," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(4), pages 969-1009, July.
  3. van der Bles, Anne Marthe & van der Liden, Sander & Freeman, Alessandra L. J. & Mitchell, James & Galvao, Ana Beatriz & Spiegelhalter, David J., 2019. "Communicating uncertainty about facts, numbers, and science," EMF Research Papers 22, Economic Modelling and Forecasting Group.
  4. Tuk, Mirjam A. & Verlegh, Peeter W.J. & Smidts, Ale & Wigboldus, Daniël H.J., 2019. "You and I have nothing in common: The role of dissimilarity in interpersonal influence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 49-60.
  5. Marie Juanchich & Miroslav Sirota & Dawn Liu Holford, 2023. "How Should Doctors Frame the Risk of a Vaccine’s Adverse Side Effects? It Depends on How Trustworthy They Are," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(7-8), pages 835-849, October.
  6. 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.
  7. Piercey, M. David, 2009. "Motivated reasoning and verbal vs. numerical probability assessment: Evidence from an accounting context," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 330-341, March.
  8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:6:p:683-695 is not listed on IDEAS
  9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:1:p:51-63 is not listed on IDEAS
  10. 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.
  11. David Budescu & Han-Hui Por & Stephen Broomell, 2012. "Effective communication of uncertainty in the IPCC reports," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 113(2), pages 181-200, July.
  12. Niels Haase & Frank Renkewitz & Cornelia Betsch, 2013. "The Measurement of Subjective Probability: Evaluating the Sensitivity and Accuracy of Various Scales," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(10), pages 1812-1828, October.
  13. Marie Juanchich & Theodore G. Shepherd & Miroslav Sirota, 2020. "Negations in uncertainty lexicon affect attention, decision-making and trust," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(3), pages 1677-1698, October.
  14. 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.
  15. Denis Hilton, 2008. "Emotional tone and argumentation in risk communication," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 100-110, January.
  16. 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.
  17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:5:p:445-464 is not listed on IDEAS
  18. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:4:p:969-1009 is not listed on IDEAS
  19. Robert Mislavsky & Celia Gaertig, 2022. "Combining Probability Forecasts: 60% and 60% Is 60%, but Likely and Likely Is Very Likely," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(1), pages 541-563, January.
  20. Saiwing Yeung, 2014. "Framing effect in evaluation of others' predictions," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(5), pages 445-464, September.
  21. V.H.M. Visschers & P.M. Wiedemann & H. Gutscher & S. Kurzenhäuser & R. Seidl & C.G. Jardine & D.R.M. Timmermans, 2012. "Affect-inducing risk communication: current knowledge and future directions," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 257-271, March.
  22. 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.
  23. Zimmer, Anja & Schade, Christian & Gründl, Helmut, 2009. "Is default risk acceptable when purchasing insurance? Experimental evidence for different probability representations, reasons for default, and framings," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 11-23, February.
  24. Mary Kynn, 2008. "The ‘heuristics and biases’ bias in expert elicitation," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 171(1), pages 239-264, January.
  25. Lawrence, Michael & Goodwin, Paul & O'Connor, Marcus & Onkal, Dilek, 2006. "Judgmental forecasting: A review of progress over the last 25 years," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 493-518.
  26. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:363-393 is not listed on IDEAS
  27. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i::p:100-110 is not listed on IDEAS
  28. 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.
  29. Marc van Buiten & Gideon Keren, 2009. "Speakers' choice of frame in binary choice: Effects of recommendation mode and option attractiveness," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(1), pages 51-63, February.
IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.