IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v121y2013i1p41-52.html

Additivity neglect in probability estimates: Effects of numeracy and response format

Author

Listed:
  • Riege, Anine H.
  • Teigen, Karl Halvor

Abstract

When people are asked to estimate the probabilities for an exhaustive set of more than two events, they often produce probabilities that add up to more than 100%. Potential determinants for such additivity neglect are explored in four experiments. Additive responses vary between experimental conditions, mainly as a result of response format, with a scale format leading to fewer additive responses than a list format with self-generated, written probabilities. Participants with high numeracy scores produced more additive responses, especially after being primed with a numeracy scale. Additivity neglect for 100% sums appears to be unrelated to other subadditive judgments, like non-additive disjunctions. We conclude that additivity neglect is caused by a case-based approach, which comes natural in real-life situations where the full set of outcomes is not available.

Suggested Citation

  • Riege, Anine H. & Teigen, Karl Halvor, 2013. "Additivity neglect in probability estimates: Effects of numeracy and response format," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 41-52.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:121:y:2013:i:1:p:41-52
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.11.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597812001288
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.11.004?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Klayman, Joshua & Soll, Jack B. & Gonzalez-Vallejo, Claudia & Barlas, Sema, 1999. "Overconfidence: It Depends on How, What, and Whom You Ask, , , , , , , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 216-247, September.
    2. Edward T. Cokely & Colleen M. Kelley, 2009. "Cognitive abilities and superior decision making under risk: A protocol analysis and process model evaluation," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(1), pages 20-33, February.
    3. Michael Theil, 2002. "The role of translations of verbal into numerical probability expressions in risk management: a meta-analysis," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(2), pages 177-186, April.
    4. Yamagishi, Kimihiko, 2002. "Proximity, Compatibility, and Noncomplementarity in Subjective Probability," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 136-155, January.
    5. 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.
    6. Craig R. Fox & Robert T. Clemen, 2005. "Subjective Probability Assessment in Decision Analysis: Partition Dependence and Bias Toward the Ignorance Prior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(9), pages 1417-1432, September.
    7. Brun, Wibecke & Teigen, Karl Halvor, 1988. "Verbal probabilities: Ambiguous, context-dependent, or both?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 390-404, June.
    8. Wändi Bruine De Bruin & Charles F. Manski & Giorgio Topa & Wilbert van der Klaauw, 2011. "Measuring consumer uncertainty about future inflation," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(3), pages 454-478, April.
    9. Ellen Peters & Irwin P. Levin, 2008. "Dissecting the risky-choice framing effect: Numeracy as an individual-difference factor in weighting risky and riskless options," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3(6), pages 435-448, August.
    10. Donald A. Redelmeier & Derek J. Koehler & Varda Liberman & Amos Tversky, 1995. "Probability Judgment in Medicine," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 15(3), pages 227-230, August.
    11. Craig R. Fox & Amos Tversky, 1998. "A Belief-Based Account of Decision Under Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(7), pages 879-895, July.
    12. Gretchen B. Chapman & Jingjing Liu, 2009. "Numeracy, frequency, and Bayesian reasoning," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(1), pages 34-40, February.
    13. Uriel Haran & Don A. Moore & Carey K. Morewedge, 2010. "A simple remedy for overprecision in judgment," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(7), pages 467-476, December.
    14. Isaac M. Lipkus & Greg Samsa & Barbara K. Rimer, 2001. "General Performance on a Numeracy Scale among Highly Educated Samples," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 37-44, February.
    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. Marie Juanchich & Miroslav Sirota, 2016. "How to improve people's interpretation of probabilities of precipitation," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(3), pages 388-404, March.
    2. Teigen, Karl Halvor & Juanchich, Marie & Løhre, Erik, 2022. "What is a “likely” amount? Representative (modal) values are considered likely even when their probabilities are low," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    3. Gro Hege Haraldsen Nordbye & Karl Halvor Teigen, 2014. "Responsibility judgments of wins and losses in the 2013 chess championship," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(4), pages 335-348, July.
    4. Saima Ghazal & Edward T. Cokely & Rocio Garcia-Retamero, 2014. "Predicting biases in very highly educated samples: Numeracy and metacognition," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(1), pages 15-34, January.
    5. Shai Davidai & Thomas Gilovich, 2016. "The tide that lifts all focal boats: Asymmetric predictions of ascent and descent in rankings," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(1), pages 7-20, January.

    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. Teigen, Karl Halvor & Juanchich, Marie & Løhre, Erik, 2022. "What is a “likely” amount? Representative (modal) values are considered likely even when their probabilities are low," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    2. Villanova, Daniel & Pandelaere, Mario, 2024. "A Numeracy-Task interaction model of perceived differences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    3. Nicolas Eber & Patrick Roger & Tristan Roger, 2024. "Finance and intelligence: An overview of the literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 503-554, April.
    4. David Tannenbaum & Craig R. Fox & Gülden Ülkümen, 2017. "Judgment Extremity and Accuracy Under Epistemic vs. Aleatory Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(2), pages 497-518, February.
    5. David Tannenbaum & Craig R. Fox & Gülden Ülkümen, 2017. "Judgment Extremity and Accuracy Under Epistemic vs. Aleatory Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(2), pages 497-518, February.
    6. Kriti Jain & Kanchan Mukherjee & J. Neil Bearden & Anil Gaba, 2013. "Unpacking the Future: A Nudge Toward Wider Subjective Confidence Intervals," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(9), pages 1970-1987, September.
    7. Muhammad Waqas & Alishba Hania & Farzan Yahya & Iqra Malik, 2023. "Enhancing Cybersecurity: The Crucial Role of Self-Regulation, Information Processing, and Financial Knowledge in Combating Phishing Attacks," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, December.
    8. Todd McElroy & David L. Dickinson & Irwin P. Levin, 2019. "Thinking About Decisions: An Integrative Approach of Person and Task Factors," Working Papers 19-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    9. Brenner, Lyle & Griffin, Dale & Koehler, Derek J., 2005. "Modeling patterns of probability calibration with random support theory: Diagnosing case-based judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 64-81, May.
    10. Robert Bordley & Joseph Kadane, 1999. "Experiment-dependent priors in psychology and physics," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 213-227, December.
    11. Olivier Armantier & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Giorgio Topa & Wilbert van der Klaauw & Basit Zafar, 2015. "Inflation Expectations And Behavior: Do Survey Respondents Act On Their Beliefs?," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 56(2), pages 505-536, May.
    12. Ferretti, Valentina & Guney, Sule & Montibeller, Gilberto & Winterfeldt, Detlof von, 2016. "Testing best practices to reduce the overconfidence bias in multi-criteria decision analysis," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 67179, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Garcia-Retamero, Rocio & Hoffrage, Ulrich, 2013. "Visual representation of statistical information improves diagnostic inferences in doctors and their patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 27-33.
    14. Mondal, Supratik & Traczyk, Jakub, 2023. "Conditionality of adaptiveness: Investigating the relationship between numeracy and adaptive behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    15. Yigal Attali & Maya Bar-Hillel, 2020. "The False Allure of Fast Lures," Discussion Paper Series dp733, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    16. Stephan Dickert & Janet Kleber & Ellen Peters & Paul Slovic, 2011. "Numeracy as a precursor to pro-social behavior: The impact of numeracy and presentation format on the cognitive mechanisms underlying donation decisions," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(7), pages 638-650, October.
    17. Enrico Diecidue & Dolchai La-ornual, 2009. "Reconciling support theory and the book-making principle," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 173-190, June.
    18. Daniel J. Walters & Philip M. Fernbach & Craig R. Fox & Steven A. Sloman, 2017. "Known Unknowns: A Critical Determinant of Confidence and Calibration," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(12), pages 4298-4307, December.
    19. Haran, Uriel & Mazar, Asaf & Hurwitz, Mordechai & Moran, Simone, 2022. "Confidently at your service: Advisors alter their stated confidence to be helpful," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    20. Ying Han & David Budescu, 2019. "A universal method for evaluating the quality of aggregators," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(4), pages 395-411, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eee:jobhdp:v:121:y:2013:i:1:p:41-52. 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.