Looking back versus looking ahead: framing of time and work at different stages of a project

Progress on a well‐defined project can be described along a task dimension in terms of amount done, or as amount of work still to be completed. Time‐limited projects can also be described on a temporal dimension in terms of time spent versus time left. Five experiments are reported showing that such frames have predictable implications for speakers as well as for listeners: Statements by a team leader about time spent and work left are perceived as suggestions to “hurry up,” whereas complementary statements about work done and time left indicate that the team can take it more easy. The first set of statements further implies that the team is behind schedule, whereas the last two statements suggest that the team is ahead of the plan. In line with this, speakers preferred work done and time left statements when they were ahead of schedule, but not when they were behind. “Hurry up” and “behind schedule” interpretations were also shown to be dependent upon stage, being more prominent in the final stages than during the initial stages of a project. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Framing experts' (dis)agreements about uncertain environmental events

Agreements and disagreements between expert statements influence lay people's beliefs. But few studies have examined what is perceived as a disagreement. We report six experiments where people rated agreement between pairs of probabilistic statements about environmental events, attributed to two different experts or to the same expert at two different points in time. The statements differed in frame, by focusing on complementary outcomes (45% probability that smog will have negative health effects vs. 55% probability that it will not have such effects), in probability level (45% vs. 55% probability of negative effects), or in both respects. Opposite frames strengthened disagreement when combined with different probability levels. Approximate probabilities can be “framed” in yet another way by indicating reference values they are “over” or “under”. Statements that use different directional verbal terms (over vs. under 50%) indicated greater disagreement than statements with the same directional term but different probability levels (over 50% vs. over 70%). Framing and directional terms similarly affected consistency judgments when both statements were issued by the same expert at different occasions. The effect of framing on perceived agreement was significant for medium (10 and 20 percentage points) differences between probabilities, whereas the effect of directional term was stable for numerical differences up to 40 percentage points. To emphasize agreement between different estimates, they should be framed in the same way. To accentuate disagreements or changes of opinion, opposite framings should be used.     

Verbal probabilities: An alternative approach

Previous studies of verbal probabilities have tried to place expressions like a chance, possible, and certain on 0–1 numerical probability scales. We ask instead, out of a range of outcomes, which outcome a verbal probability suggests. When, for instance, a sample of laptop batteries lasts from 1.5 to 3.5 hours, what is a certain and what is a possible duration? Experiment 1 showed that speakers associate certain with low values and possible with (unlikely) high or maximal values. In Experiment 2, this methodology was applied to several positive and negative verbal probability phrases, showing a preference for high rather than low or middle values in a distribution. Experiment 3 showed that such maxima are not universally described by large numbers. For instance, maximum speed is often described in terms of a small number of time units. What can (possibly) happen is accordingly sometimes described with very low and sometimes with very high values, depending upon focus of interest. Finally, participants in Experiment 4 were given the role of hearers rather than speakers and were asked to infer outcome ranges from verbal probabilities. Hearers appeared to be partly aware of speakers' tendencies to describe outcomes at the top of the range.     

Perceived causes of everyday memory problems in a population‐based sample aged 39–99

There is usually a weak relation between memory complaints and laboratory memory performance, but few studies have investigated what people perceive as causes of their everyday memory problems. This study investigated prevalence, severity and perceived causes of memory problems in a population‐based sample (N = 361, age‐range 39–99). 30.2 per cent of the participants reported memory complaints (at least moderate memory problems). Higher age was associated with more severe memory problems, but the age‐related differences were small. The most frequent perceived causes were age/ageing, stress and multitasking. Age/ageing as a cause was more frequent among older participants, and stress and multitasking were more frequent among middle‐aged participants. The results suggest that everyday stress and level of engagement in multiple tasks or commitments, that place demands on cognitive resources, are important variables to consider when studying the relations between subjective everyday memory measures, age and memory performance in the laboratory. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Framing of imprecise quantities: When are lower interval bounds preferred to upper bounds?

Imprecisely known quantities (e.g., predictions) are often described in approximate terms as “more than X” or “less than Y” (e.g., “Ann will earn more than $50 000” or “less than $60 000”). Such phrases carry both quantitative and qualitative (pragmatic) information. Three studies are reported showing that lower limit estimates (more than, over, minimum) are generally more frequent, and considered more appropriate than upper limit estimates (less than, under, maximum) over a wide range of contexts. This is partly due to scalar properties of the number system, where lower numbers are attained before, and included in higher numbers, but not vice versa. As a result, upper limit statements are perceived as negations, and carry more specific information about the speaker's communicative concerns. Upper limit statements are preferred with amounts or quantities that can be perceived as small, whereas lower limit statements can be used both to indicate large quantities and as a default. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

“Because I Love You …” The Tactical Use of Attributional Expressions in Conversation

While attributional processes are traditionally regarded as intrapersonal phenomena, attributional statements are a common feature of interpersonal communication. This study sought to explore the nature of attributions that are used tactically in conversation. Among other tasks, participants were asked to describe conversations in which causal statements had been posited for some “ulterior” purpose—perhaps to evoke an emotion, obtain a behavior, or receive some sort of compliment. Results revealed that the most commonly cited tactical attributions included excuses, justifications, and affiliation moves. Nontactical attributions, in contrast, rarely included affiliation moves. Attributions that were used tactically also tended to focus more frequently on positive events, behaviors, or qualities and tended to emphasize interpersonal, stable sources more often than nontactical attributions. The most frequently perceived goal for tactical attributions was to obtain an object or behavior. Implications for an extension of the literature on accounts are discussed.     

HALF‐TRUTHS

Half‐truths are statements that have some insight or truth in them, but do not amount to a final or definitive truth that all competent judges should be able to accept. Complete truth requires that the relevant interpretative structures can be taken for granted, and can be expected to be understood by all competent language users. Disciplines such as philosophy, history, and sociology do contain a small number of complete truths, concerning some logical relations or such matters as the year of Columbus' arrival in the new world or recorded vote totals in some elections. But most of what they yield (the most interesting part) will consist of half‐truths.     

On the Counterfactual Nature of Gambling Near‐misses: An Experimental Study

Research on gambling near‐misses has shown that objectively equivalent outcomes can yield divergent emotional and motivational responses. The subjective processing of gambling outcomes is affected substantially by close but non‐obtained outcomes (i.e. counterfactuals). In the current paper, we investigate how different types of near‐misses influence self‐perceived luck and subsequent betting behavior in a wheel‐of‐fortune task. We investigate the counterfactual mechanism of these effects by testing the relationship with a second task measuring regret/relief processing. Across two experiments (Experiment 1, n = 51; Experiment 2, n = 104), we demonstrate that near‐wins (neutral outcomes that are close to a jackpot) decreased self‐perceived luck, whereas near‐losses (neutral outcomes that are close to a major penalty) increased luck ratings. The effects of near‐misses varied by near‐miss position (i.e. whether the spinner stopped just short of, or passed through, the counterfactual outcome), consistent with established distinctions between upward versus downward, and additive versus subtractive, counterfactual thinking. In Experiment 1, individuals who showed stronger counterfactual processing on the regret/relief task were more responsive to near‐wins and near‐losses on the wheel‐of‐fortune task. The effect of near‐miss position was attenuated when the anticipatory phase (i.e. the spin and deceleration) was removed in Experiment 2. Further differences were observed within the objective gains and losses, between “clear” and “narrow” outcomes. Taken together, these results help substantiate the counterfactual mechanism of near‐misses. © 2017 The Authors Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.     

The paradox of the first person singular pronoun

The author attempts to provide a characterization of statements which will avoid the twin perils of identifying them with sentences per se or with such non‐observable entities as “propositions”, “meanings” etc. In providing a positive account of the sorts of things statements are, he distinguishes between the utterances of sentences, and. sentences per se, and maintains that statements are to be identified with those utterances made in certain kinds of circumstances. In the light of this analysis, it is then argued that who or what the speaker refers to in the course of making a statement does not form part of the circumstances which determine what statement he is making, nor does it form part of the circumstances which determine whether he is making the same or different statements by the words he uses.     

Keeping the Result in Sight and Mind: General Cognitive Principles and Language‐Specific Influences in the Perception and Memory of Resultative Events

We study how people attend to and memorize endings of events that differ in the degree to which objects in them are affected by an action: Resultative events show objects that undergo a visually salient change in state during the course of the event (peeling a potato), and non‐resultative events involve objects that undergo no, or only partial state change (stirring in a pan). We investigate general cognitive principles, and potential language‐specific influences, in verbal and nonverbal event encoding and memory, across two experiments with Dutch and Estonian participants. Estonian marks a viewer's perspective on an event's result obligatorily via grammatical case on direct object nouns: Objects undergoing a partial/full change in state in an event are marked with partitive/accusative case, respectively. Therefore, we hypothesized increased saliency of object states and event results in Estonian speakers, as compared to speakers of Dutch. Findings show (a) a general cognitive principle of attending carefully to endings of resultative events, implying cognitive saliency of object states in event processing; (b) a language‐specific boost on attention and memory of event results under verbal task demands in Estonian speakers. Results are discussed in relation to theories of event cognition, linguistic relativity, and thinking for speaking.     

What Does Children's Spatial Language Reveal About Spatial Concepts? Evidence From the Use of Containment Expressions

Children's overextensions of spatial language are often taken to reveal spatial biases. However, it is unclear whether extension patterns should be attributed to children's overly general spatial concepts or to a narrower notion of conceptual similarity allowing metaphor‐like extensions. We describe a previously unnoticed extension of spatial expressions and use a novel method to determine its origins. English‐ and Greek‐speaking 4‐ and 5‐year‐olds used containment expressions (e.g., English into, Greek mesa) for events where an object moved into another object but extended such expressions to events where the object moved behind or under another object. The pattern emerged in adult speakers of both languages and also in speakers of 10 additional languages. We conclude that learners do not have an overly general concept of Containment. Nevertheless, children (and adults) perceive similarities across Containment and other types of spatial scenes, even when these similarities are obscured by the conventional forms of the language.     

Patient Expectations of Benefit from Phase I Clinical Trials: Linguistic Considerations in Diagnosing a Therapeutic Misconception

The ethical treatment of cancer patientsparticipating in clinical trials requiresthat patients are well-informed about thepotential benefits and risks associated withparticipation. When patients enrolled in phaseI clinical trials report that their chance ofbenefit is very high, this is often taken as evidence of a failure of the informed consent process. We argue, however, that some simple themes from the philosophy of language may make such a conclusion less certain. First, the patient may receive conflicting statements from multiple speakers about the expected outcome of the trial. Patients may be reporting the message they like best. Second, there is a potential problem of multivocality. Expressions of uncertainty of the frequency type(e.g., ``On average, 5 out of every 100 patientswill benefit') can be confused with expressionsof uncertainty of the belief type (e.g.,``The chance that I will benefit is about80%'). Patients may be informed using frequency-type statements and respond using belief-type statements. Third, each speech episode involving the investigator and the patient regarding outcomes may subservemultiple speech acts, some of which may beindirect. For example, a patient reporting ahigh expected benefit may be reporting a beliefabout the future, reassuring family members,and/or attempting to improve his or her outcome by apublic assertion of optimism. These sources oflinguistic confusion should be considered injudging whether the patient's reported expectation isgrounds for a bioethical concern that there hasbeen a failure in the informed consent process.     

How fast can you (possibly) do it,or how long will it (certainly) take? Communicating uncertain estimates of performance time

Recent research on verbal probability statements has revealed that some expressions (e.g., possible) are especially appropriate for describing outcomes in the high end of a distribution, whereas other expressions (e.g., certain) are more appropriate for describing low-end values. However, some dimensions appear to be reversible, with higher achievements sometimes associated with high and sometimes with low values, depending on frame. We report three experiments where this “reframing effect” is studied in communications of estimated performance time, both from a speaker's and from a listener's perspective. We hypothesize that statements describing tasks as “taking time” suggest a duration frame, and find accordingly that statements about how many hours that possibly will be spent on a task, or the time a task possibly takes, lead to high time estimates. Statements focusing on the actor's role suggest, in contrast, a speed frame, thus statements about what the actor can possibly do lead to low time estimates. Estimates of the time a task certainly takes or when it is certainly done follow the opposite pattern. The results are in line with approaches that see production and comprehension of language as a dynamical and context-driven process.     

THE LOVE RACKET: DEFINING LOVE AND AGAPEFOR THE LOVE‐AND‐SCIENCE RESEARCH PROGRAM

Abstract. Scholars of religion and science have generated remarkable scholarship in recent years in their explorations of love. Exactly how scholars involved in this budding field believe that love and science should relate and/or be integrated varies greatly. What they share in common is the belief that issues of love are of paramount importance and that the various scientific disciplines—whether natural, social, or religious—must be brought to bear upon how best to understand love. I briefly introduce the emergence of the love‐and‐science research program and note that scholars have not done well defining what they mean by love. I suggest that the present surge in love scholarship will fail to produce the positive results that it otherwise might if love is not defined well. I provide and defend a definition of love adequate for those doing love‐and‐science research: To love is to act intentionally, in sympathetic response to others (including God), to promote well‐being. To explain better what this simple definition entails, I explore its three main phrases. Love is said to have many forms, but agape is the form to which the love‐and‐science literature most commonly refers. I comment briefly on the debates about how to best understand agape, noting sixteen different definitions proposed by major scholars. I identify weaknesses in many of them and then offer what I argue is a more adequate definition of agape as intentional response to promote well‐being when confronted by that which generates ill‐being. In short, agape repays evil with good. While research on love and science requires much more than adequate definitions, I believe that the definitions I proffer can prove useful in furthering the love‐and‐science research program.     

Equivalence of serufuesutei‐mu (self‐esteem) and jisonshin in Japan

Most studies of Japanese self‐esteem have implicitly assumed that the concept of self‐esteem (SE) is indigenously meaningful. However, this has not been shown to be true. The present research investigated whether the indigenous Japanese word jisonshin is semantically equivalent to the English expression SE and, by implication, whether it denotes the same concept as originally delineated by Rosenberg, that of having a positive attitude toward oneself. Japanese participants (N = 234) responded to 11 pairs of statements about SE and several other items. Half of the statements contained the expression serufuesutei‐mu (self‐esteem), the other half the expression jisonshin. Participants independently judged the two expressions to be ‘basically’ synonymous, but endorsed some otherwise identical statements significantly more often when they contained the expression serufuesutei‐mu, suggesting that the differences were due to the foreign connotations of the expression serufuesutei‐mu.     

On the role of rarity information in speakers’ choice of frame

In this article, we examine conversational behaviors when people describe the outcomes of uncertain events. We propose a new hypothesis, frame choice based on rarity information, that is built on the basis of one prominent measure of informativeness (i.e., self-information). The hypothesis predicts that when speakers can choose one of two logically equivalent frames for describing the outcome of an uncertain event (e.g., the results of the roll of a die or a medical operation), they prefer the frame denoting an event that is known or perceived to be rare. Four experiments using frame choice tasks provide evidence that speakers’ choice of frame is explained well by the rarity hypothesis.     

Rational model and justification model in ‘outcome bias’

The authors of this study suggest that the harm‐punishment link (‘outcome bias’) can be explained by the activation of different judgment processes depending on the outcome severity of an offense: (1) a rational model for mild outcomes in which punishment is necessarily linked to responsibility of the perpetrator; (2) a justification model for severe outcomes in which punishment and responsibility are linked only when assessment order allows the latter to rationalize the former. Participants (126 university students) considered an unintentional road accident with mild or severe outcomes and made judgments of responsibility, punishment, and perceived seriousness of the offense. The results support the authors' hypothesis. In the discussion, the authors suggest different motives of punishment (preventive or compensative justice) which explain why responsibility and punishment are not necessarily linked. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

There is a 60% probability,but I am 70% certain: communicative consequences of external and internal expressions of uncertainty

Current theories of probability recognise a distinction between external (un)certainty (frequentistic probabilities) and internal (un)certainty (degrees of belief). The present studies investigated this distinction in lay people's judgements of probability statements formulated to suggest either an internal (“I am X% certain”) or an external (“It is X% certain” or “There is an X% probability”) interpretation. These subtle differences in wording influenced participants' perceptions and endorsements of such statements, and their impressions of the speaker. External expressions were seen to signal more reliable task duration estimates, and a lower degree of external than internal certainty was deemed necessary to advise a course of action. In conversations about football, internal expressions were perceived as signalling more personal interest, and were expected to be on the average 10% higher than corresponding external probabilities. Finally, people who reported their outcome expectations for two major sports events let their degree of interest in these events influence their internal but not their external certainty. These results have implications for the communication of uncertainty and probability.     

Learning From Peers’ Eye Movements in the Absence of Expert Guidance: A Proof of Concept Using Laboratory Stock Trading,Eye Tracking,and Machine Learning

Existing research shows that people can improve their decision skills by learning what experts paid attention to when faced with the same problem. However, in domains like financial education, effective instruction requires frequent, personalized feedback given at the point of decision, which makes it time‐consuming for experts to provide and thus, prohibitively costly. We address this by demonstrating an automated feedback mechanism that allows amateur decision‐makers to learn what information to attend to from one another, rather than from an expert. In the first experiment, eye movements of N = 100 subjects were recorded while they repeatedly performed a standard behavioral finance investment task. Consistent with previous studies, we found that a significant proportion of subjects were affected by decision bias. In the second experiment, a different group of N = 100 subjects faced the same task but, after each choice, they received individual, machine learning‐generated feedback on whether their pre‐decision eye movements resembled those made by Experiment 1 subjects prior to good decisions. As a result, Experiment 2 subjects learned to analyze information similarly to their successful peers, which in turn reduced their decision bias. Furthermore, subjects with low Cognitive Reflection Test scores gained more from the proposed form of process feedback than from standard behavioral feedback based on decision outcomes.     

The proximity heuristic in judgments of accident probabilities

In daily life, probabilities are often assessed informally through the perceived distance to a target event. Accident probabilities are believed to be high when a disastrous outcome appears to be close. This proximity heuristic can lead to exaggerated p(death) estimates in risky situations (Experiment 2), and sometimes higher probabilities for death after near‐accidents than after actual accidents (Experiment 3 and 4). Near‐accidents are also believed to be equally good, or better, predictors of future disasters than actual accidents, despite being less serious and more frequent (Experiment 5). The proximity heuristic influences the way people talk about their own and other people's chances (Experiment 1), and how they prepare to avoid (or, if necessary, to produce) a disastrous outcome (Experiment 6).