The perceived functions of linguistic risk quantifiers and their effect on risk, negativity perception and decision making
When someone is told: “it is possible that you will lose your investment”, “possible” can be interpreted as plainly reflecting the speaker’s degree of certainty (i.e., likelihood-communication device) or as tactfully communicating the probable occurrence of losses (i.e., hearer-face-management device). We suggest that risk quantifiers can also serve the speaker’s interest by decreasing the chance of being blamed for an incorrect wrongful prediction (i.e., speaker-face-management device). In five experiments, we investigate how individuals interpret risk quantifiers and the effect of their interpretations on risk perception. Results show that speaker-face-management is the most frequent interpretation in both negative and positive outcome predictions, for different probability terms, and in different cultures. Results consistently show that device interpretation determines risk judgment, negativity perceptions and decision making. Results are discussed within the framework of politeness theory and implications for risk communication are reviewed.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 118 (2012)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Erev, Ido & Cohen, Brent L., 1990. "Verbal versus numerical probabilities: Efficiency, biases, and the preference paradox," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 1-18, February.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:118:y:2012:i:1:p:72-81. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.