Abstract
Despite much disagreement regarding how probabilistic information is best communicated, virtually no research has been done to determine what communication modes people prefer or what factors affect their communication preferences. To address these issues, we did a survey of 442 graduate and undergraduate students in several specialties and universities. Some group differences emerged, but overall, 34% expressed preference for both conveying and receiving information about uncertainty in numerical rather than verbal form, 30% expressed the opposite preferences, and 35% indicated that they preferred to receive such information numerically but to convey it verbally. Generally, respondents who endorsed the use of verbal information said that it is easier to use, as well as more natural and personal. Those preferring numerical information said that it is more precise. Virtually all respondents, however, evidenced a willingness to use the opposite of their initially preferred mode if the situation should warrant it. The willingness to switch from one mode to another was said to depend on the level of precision implied by the data and the importance of the issue, as was suggested by Budescu and Wallsten (1987). These results may be helpful in structuring risk communication strategies.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Behn, R. D., & Vaupel, J. W. (1982). Quick analysis for busy decision makers. New York: Basic Books.
Beyth-Marom, R. (1982). How probable is probable? A numerical translation of verbal probability expressions. Journal of Forecasting, 1, 257–269.
Brun, W., & Teigen, K. H. (1988). Verbal probabilities: Ambiguous, context dependent, or both. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 41, 390–404.
Budescu, D. V., & Wallsten, T. S. (1985). Consistency in interpretation of probabilistic phrases. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 36, 391–405.
Budescu, D. V., & Wallsten, T. S. (1987). Subjective estimation of vague and precise uncertainties. In G. Wright & P. Ayton (Eds.), Judgmental forecasting (pp. 63–82). New York: Wiley.
De March, B. (1991). The Seveso Directive: An Italian pilot study in enabling communication. Risk Analysis, 11, 207–237.
Erev, I., & Cohen, B. (1990). Verbal versus numerical probabilities: Efficiency, biases, and the preference paradox. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 45, 1–18.
Fisher, A. (1991). Risk communication challenges. Risk Analysis, 11, 173–183.
Johnson, E. M. (1973). Numerical encoding of qualitative expressions of uncertainty (Tech paper 250). Alexandria, VA: US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Kuipers, B., Moskowitz, A. J., & Kassirer, J. P. (1988). Critical decisions under uncertainty: Representation and structure. Cognitive Science, 12, 177–210.
Linnerooth-Bayer, J., & Wahlström, B. (1991). Applications of probabilistic risk assessments: The selection of appropriate tools. Risk Analysis, 11, 239–248.
Morgan, M. G., & Henrion, M. (1990). Uncertainty: A guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
National Research Council Governing Board Committee on the Assessment of Risk (1981). The handling of risk assessments in NRC reports. Washington, DC: US National Research Council.
Ruckelshaus, W. D. (1984). Risk in a free society. Risk Analysis, 4, 157–162.
Slovic, P. (1986). Informing and educating the public about risk. Risk Analysis, 6, 403–415.
von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wallsten, T. S. (1990). The costs and benefits of vague information. In R. Hogarth (Ed.), Insights in decision making: A tribute to the late Hillel Einhorn (pp. 28–43). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wallsten, T. S., Budescu, D. V., Rapoport A., Zwick, R., & Forsyth, B. (1986). Measuring the vague meanings of probability terms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 348–365.
Zimmer, A. C. (1983). Verbal vs. numerical processing of subjective probabilities. In R. W. Scholz (Ed.), Decision making under uncertainty (pp. 159–182). New York: North-Holland.
Zwick, R., & Wallsten, T. S. (1989). Combining stochastic and linguistic inexactness: Theory and experimental evaluation of four fuzzy probability models. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 30, 69–111.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by National Science Foundation Grants BNS8608692 and BNS8908554. We thank Ann Fisher and Baruch Fischhoff for comments on an earlier draft. R.Z. is in the Department of Marketing at Pennsylvania State.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wallsten, T.S., Budescu, D.V., Zwick, R. et al. Preferences and reasons for communicating probabilistic information in verbal or numerical terms. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 31, 135–138 (1993). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03334162
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03334162