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.     

What shapes the probability weighting function? Influence of affect,numeric competencies,and information formats

Research suggests that people are less sensitive to variations in probability in affect‐rich compared with affect‐poor risky choices. This effect is modeled by a more curved probability weighting function (PWF). We investigated the role of different numeric competencies and the effectiveness of several intervention strategies to decrease this affect‐laden probability distortion. In two experiments, we manipulated the affect‐richness of a risky prospect. In Experiment 1 (N = 467), we measured numeracy and symbolic‐number mapping (i.e., the ability to accurately map numbers onto their underlying magnitudes). The affect‐based manipulations showed the expected effects only in participants with more accurate symbolic‐number mapping, who also reported more differentiated emotional reactions to the various probabilities and displayed more linear PWFs. Instructions to focus on the probability information decreased probability distortion and revealed differences in the use of probability information on the basis of symbolic‐number mapping ability. In Experiment 2 (N = 417), we manipulated the format in which the probability information was presented: using visual aids versus no visual aids and a positive frame (e.g., one person wins) versus combined frame (e.g., one person wins and 99 persons do not win). The affect‐based manipulations had no effect but both the visual aids and combined frame decreased probability distortion. Whereas affect‐richness manipulations require further research, results suggest that probability weighting is at least partially driven by the inability to translate numerical information into meaningful and well‐calibrated affective intuitions. Visual aids and simple framing manipulations designed to calibrate these intuitions can help decision makers extract the gist and increase sensitivity to probabilities.     

A survey on adverse incidents in legal psychology studies: Reflections on ethics review

Ethics committees (ECs) regulate research activities to maintain research participants' autonomy and to protect them from harm and injury. No research to date attempted to establish how much risk is involved in social‐science research. Using a survey approach, we set out to estimate the risk of being involved in an incident for research participants in legal psychology and assessed researchers' views of ECs. Fifty‐nine of 188 respondents (31%) stated that they had experienced one or more incidents with a participant. The estimated risk of being involved in an incident was one to three per 10,000 participants, which according to biomedical standards defines a rare risk. Although some researchers were satisfied with their EC, the general tenor was one of discontent due to conservative decision‐making, lacking expertise, and overstepping demands. Whether ECs succeed in protecting participants from loss of autonomy, harm and injury are unknown but are open to empirical research.     

Getting scarred and winning lotteries: effects of exemplar cuing and statistical format on imagining low‐probability events

Three experiments tested the exemplar cuing and frequency format accounts of how the ‘imaginability’ of low‐probability events is enhanced. The experiments manipulated imaginability by varying the statistics used to describe negative (e.g. being scarred as a result of laser surgery) and positive (e.g. winning a lottery) low‐probability events. The results strongly supported the frequency format account, whereby imaginability is enhanced through the use of frequency formats for conveying statistical information (e.g. 20 out of 2000 as opposed to 0.01%). However, only limited support was found for exemplar cuing (EC) theory. Overall the results support the claim that the imaginability of outcomes plays a key role in thinking about low‐probability events, but question the mechanisms specified by EC theory for mediating such effects. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Social discounting and delay discounting

Social discounting was measured as the amount of money a participant was willing to forgo to give a fixed amount (usually $75) to another person. In the first experiment, amount forgone was a hyperbolic function of the social distance between the giver and receiver. In the second experiment, degree of social discounting was an increasing function of reward magnitude whereas degree of delay discounting was a decreasing function of reward magnitude. In the third experiment, the shape of the function relating delayed rewards to equally valued immediate rewards for another person was predicted from individual delay and social discount functions. All in all, the studies show that the social discount function, like delay and probability discount functions, is hyperbolic in form. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Horgan on Sleeping Beauty

With the notable exception of David Lewis, most of those writing on the Sleeping Beauty problem have argued that 1/3 is the correct answer. Terence Horgan has provided the clearest account of why, contrary to Lewis, Beauty has evidence against the proposition that the coin comes up heads when she awakens on Monday. In this paper, I argue that Horgan’s proposal fails because it neglects important facts about epistemic probability.     

Synchronic Bayesian updating and the Sleeping Beauty problem: reply to Pust

I maintain, in defending “thirdism,” that Sleeping Beauty should do Bayesian updating after assigning the “preliminary probability” 1/4 to the statement S: “Today is Tuesday and the coin flip is heads.” (This preliminary probability obtains relative to a specific proper subset I of her available information.) Pust objects that her preliminary probability for S is really zero, because she could not be in an epistemic situation in which S is true. I reply that the impossibility of being in such an epistemic situation is irrelevant, because relative to I, statement S nonetheless has degree of evidential support 1/4.     

用文字概率衡量不确定性：特征和问题

文字概率是衡量不确定性的方式之一, 即人们使用诸如“也许”、“未必”的词汇来描述特定事件发生的可能性。文字概率不同于数字概率, 主要体现在文字概率的模糊性、非概率运算性和语义特性上。这使得相对于数字概率, 用文字概率衡量不确定性既有优势也有问题, 进而对人们的不确定信息沟通和风险决策造成影响。虽然文字概率与数字概率存在特征上的差异并且人们在日常交流中偏爱文字概率, 但是大部分风险领域的研究却仅局限于数字概率, 今后有必要研究使用文字概率测量的风险决策。在已有文字概率特征研究的基础上, 还可以进一步探究其不同于数字概率的其它特征(文字/数字概率与双系统模型的联系、文字概率的跨文化差异等)及其对风险决策的影响。     

Maximum Entropy Inference with Quantified Knowledge

We investigate uncertain reasoning with quantified sentencesof the predicate calculus treated as the limiting case of maximumentropy inference applied to finite domains.     

Verbal probabilities: a question of frame?

Verbal expressions of probability and uncertainty are of two kinds: positive (‘probable’, ‘possible’) and negative (‘not certain’, ‘doubtful’). Choice of term has implications for predictions and decisions. The present studies show that positive phrases are rated to be more optimistic (when the target outcome is positive), and more correct, when the target outcome actually occurs, even in cases where positive and negative phrases are perceived to convey the same probabilities (Experiments 1 and 2). Selection of phrase can be determined by linguistic frame. Positive quantifiers (‘some’, ‘several’) support positive probability phrases, whereas negative quantifiers (‘not all’) suggest negative phrases (Experiment 3). Positive frames induced by numeric frequencies (e.g. the number of students to be admitted) imply positive probability phrases, whereas negative frames (e.g. the number of students to be rejected) call for negative probability phrases (Experiment 4). It is concluded that choice of verbal phrase is based not only on level of probability, but also on situational and linguistic cues. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.