IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v16y2021i2p363-393_5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Facilitating sender-receiver agreement in communicated probabilities: Is it best to use words, numbers or both?

Author

Listed:
  • Mandel, David R.
  • Irwin, Daniel

Abstract

Organizations tasked with communicating expert judgments couched in uncertainty often use numerically bounded linguistic probability schemes to standardize the meaning of verbal probabilities. An experiment (N = 1,202) was conducted to ascertain whether agreement with such a scheme was better when probabilities were presented verbally, numerically or in a combined “verbal + numeric” format. Across three agreement measures, the numeric and combined formats outperformed the verbal format and also yielded better discrimination between low and high probabilities and were less susceptible to the fifty-fifty blip phenomenon. The combined format did not confer any advantage over the purely numeric format. The findings indicate that numerically bounded linguistic probability schemes are an ineffective means of communicating information about probabilities to others and they call into question recommendations for use of the combined format for delivering such schemes.

Suggested Citation

  • Mandel, David R. & Irwin, Daniel, 2021. "Facilitating sender-receiver agreement in communicated probabilities: Is it best to use words, numbers or both?," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 363-393, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:363-393_5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500008603/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:363-393_5. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    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.