IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v121y2013i1p118-128.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Context affects the interpretation of low but not high numerical probabilities: A hypothesis testing account of subjective probability

Author

Listed:
  • Bilgin, Baler
  • Brenner, Lyle

Abstract

Low numerical probabilities tend to be directionally ambiguous, meaning they can be interpreted either positively, suggesting the occurrence of the target event, or negatively, suggesting its non-occurrence. High numerical probabilities, however, are typically interpreted positively. We argue that the greater directional ambiguity of low numerical probabilities may make them more susceptible than high probabilities to contextual influences. Results from five experiments supported this premise, with perceived base rate affecting the interpretation of an event’s numerical posterior probability more when it was low than high. The effect is consistent with a confirmatory hypothesis testing process, with the relevant perceived base rate suggesting the directional hypothesis which people then test in a confirmatory manner.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:121:y:2013:i:1:p:118-128
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.01.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597813000174
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.01.004?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. Teigen, Karl Halvor & Brun, Wibecke, 1999. "The Directionality of Verbal Probability Expressions: Effects on Decisions, Predictions, and Probabilistic Reasoning, , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 155-190, November.
    2. Chapman, Gretchen B. & Johnson, Eric J., 1999. "Anchoring, Activation, and the Construction of Values, , , , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 115-153, August.
    3. Joao L. Becker & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1987. "Lottery Dependent Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(11), pages 1367-1382, November.
    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. 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.
    2. Tobias Heinrich & Christopher Witko, 2021. "Technology‐Induced Job Loss and the Prioritization of Economic Problems in the Mass Public," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(2), pages 164-179, March.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:6:p:683-695 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Posavac, Steven S. & Ratchford, Mark & Bollen, Nicolas P.B. & Sanbonmatsu, David M., 2019. "Premature infatuation and commitment in individual investing decisions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 245-259.

    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. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    2. Dan Ariely & Kristina Shampan'er, 2006. "How small is zero price? : the true value of free products," Working Papers 06-16, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    3. Jing-Yi Chen & Ming-Hui Wang, 2023. "A Study on Real Estate Purchase Decisions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-21, March.
    4. Fischer, Greg & Karlan, Dean & McConnell, Margaret & Raffler, Pia, 2019. "Short-term subsidies and seller type: A health products experiment in Uganda," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 110-124.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:1:p:41-50 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine & Zacharias Maniadis, 2012. "On the Robustness of Anchoring Effects in WTP and WTA Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(2), pages 131-145, May.
    7. He, Haoran & Wu, Keyu, 2016. "Choice set, relative income, and inequity aversion: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 177-193.
    8. Johannes Abeler & Armin Falk & Lorenz Goette & David Huffman, 2011. "Reference Points and Effort Provision," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 470-492, April.
    9. Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till E., 2015. "Anchoring in social context," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 29-39.
    10. Noel T. Brewer & Sarah E. Lillie & William K. Hallman, 2006. "Why People Believe They Were Exposed to Biological or Chemical Warfare: A Survey of Gulf War Veterans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 337-345, April.
    11. Michael Birnbaum, 2005. "A Comparison of Five Models that Predict Violations of First-Order Stochastic Dominance in Risky Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 263-287, December.
    12. Raphaël Giraud, 2004. "Framing under risk: Endogenizing the Reference Point and Separating Cognition and Decision," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques bla04090, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    13. Mussweiler, Thomas & Englich, Birte, 2005. "Subliminal anchoring: Judgmental consequences and underlying mechanisms," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 133-143, November.
    14. Thierry Chauveau, 2012. "Subjective risk and disappointment," Post-Print halshs-00747902, HAL.
    15. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:6:p:683-695 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. repec:cup:judgdm:v:2:y:2007:i::p:48-53 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Kontek, Krzysztof, 2015. "Fanning-Out or Fanning-In? Continuous or Discontinuous? Estimating Indifference Curves Inside the Marschak-Machina Triangle using Certainty Equivalents," MPRA Paper 63965, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. 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.
    19. Lukas Meub & Till Proeger, 2018. "Are groups ‘less behavioral’? The case of anchoring," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(2), pages 117-150, August.
    20. Konstantinos Ioannidis & Theo Offerman & Randolph Sloof, 2020. "On the effect of anchoring on valuations when the anchor is transparently uninformative," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(1), pages 77-94, June.
    21. Andrzej Kozina, 2017. "Negotiation Competences of an Entrepreneur," Problemy Zarzadzania, University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management, vol. 15(65), pages 209-225.
    22. Hoeffler, Steve & Ariely, Dan & West, Pat, 2006. "Path dependent preferences: The role of early experience and biased search in preference development," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 215-229, November.
    23. Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till & Bizer, Kilian, 2013. "Anchoring: A valid explanation for biased forecasts when rational predictions are easily accessible and well incentivized?," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 166, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.

    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:121:y:2013:i:1:p:118-128. 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.