What is a “likely” amount? Representative (modal) values are considered likely even when their probabilities are low

Teigen, Karl Halvor; Juanchich, Marie; Løhre, Erik

doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104166

Cited by 4 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Participants largely over-estimated the chances of occurrence of the outcome they had predicted, both when they were extreme (hence rare)-when the most likely outcome was chosen. This is consistent with studies showing that the probability of occurrence of multi-outcome events seems not to be based on their absolute chances, but rather upon how likely they are compared with other events in the distribution (Teigen, 2001;Windschitl & Wells, 1998), and also with more recent work on "likely" interval predictions, where participants mostly failed to select an interval wide enough to be statistically probable (Teigen et al, 2022b).…”

Section: Participants Do Not Have a General Preference For Extreme Ou...supporting

confidence: 89%

“…The jeans shrinkage graph was similar, showing seven shrinkage amounts on the horizontal axis ranging from 0.6 to 1.4 cm in increments of 0.2 cm and an approximately normal distribution of frequencies (0, 20, 80 100, 80, 20, and 0). Past work showed that participants from online platforms (like ours) have sufficient levels of numeracy to correctly read the distribution (Teigen et al, 2022b). The vignettes are available on the Open Science Framework.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Studies showing an extremity preference have mostly concentrated on a limited selection of uncertainty adverbs and adjectives (e.g., unlikely , possible ) or modals (e.g., will , can ). Studies of some other terms, such as likely and probable , were not associated with extreme outcomes but rather with more moderate (middle) ones, more specifically the peak, or modal value of the distribution ( Teigen et al, 2014 , 2022b ). Interestingly, even in these cases, participants still largely over-estimated the chances of their predicted outcome occurring.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Research also shows that people are able to read and understand a graph showing a frequentistic distribution as proved by correct identification of the frequencies of different outcomes ( Teigen et al, 2022b ; Study 6). Consistently, in a series of studies on what was likely to happen, education did not predict the preference for a specific outcome, and nor did graph literacy ( Teigen et al, 2022b ). The extremity preference could be explained by the fact that extreme outcomes might be judged more important and more informative than other values in the distribution “in general.” For instance, athletes will be judged based on their maximal, rather than their average performance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…However, the preference for extreme outcomes (and associated probability over-estimation) cannot be simply based on a misunderstanding of the probabilistic information given, since this preference remained the same across numeracy levels (Jenkins et al, 2018). Research also shows that people are able to read and understand a graph showing a frequentistic distribution as proved by correct identification of the frequencies of different outcomes (Teigen et al, 2022b;Study 6). Consistently, in a series of studies on what was likely to happen, education did not predict the preference for a specific outcome, and nor did graph literacy (Teigen et al, 2022b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

People prefer to predict middle, most likely quantitative outcomes (not extreme ones), but they still over-estimate their likelihood

Juanchich

Sirota

Teigen

2023

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Past work showed a tendency to associate verbal probabilities (e.g., possible, unlikely) with extreme quantitative outcomes, and to over-estimate the outcomes’ probability of occurrence. In the first four experiments (Exp 1, Exps. 2a–c), we tested whether this “extremity effect” reflects a general preference for extreme (vs. central or less extreme) values of a distribution. Participants made predictions based on a frequency distribution in two scenarios. We did not find a preference for extreme outcomes. Instead, most of the participants made a prediction about the middle, most frequent outcome of the distribution (i.e., the modal outcome), but still over-estimated the outcomes’ probabilities. In Experiment 3, we tested whether the over-estimation could be better explained by an “at least”/“at most” reading of the predictions. We found that only a minority of participants interpreted predictions as the lower/upper bounds of an open interval and that these interpretations were not associated with heightened probability estimates. In the final three experiments (Exps. 4a–c), we tested whether participants perceived extreme outcome predictions as more correct, useful and interesting than modal outcome predictions. We found that extreme and modal predictions were considered equally correct, but modal predictions were judged most useful, whereas extreme predictions were judged to be more interesting. Overall, our results indicate that the preference for extreme outcomes is limited to specific verbal probability expressions whereas the over-estimation of the probability of quantitative outcomes may be more general than anticipated and applies to non-extreme values as well.

show abstract

Section: Participants Do Not Have a General Preference For Extreme Ou...supporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

People prefer to predict middle, most likely quantitative outcomes (not extreme ones), but they still over-estimate their likelihood

Juanchich

Sirota

Teigen

2023

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Dimensions of uncertainty communication: What is conveyed by verbal terms and numeric ranges

Teigen

2022

Curr Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper reviews two strands of research on communication of uncertainty that usually have been investigated separately: (1) Probabilities attached to specific outcomes, and (2) Range judgments. Probabilities are sometimes expressed by verbal phrases (“rain is likely”) and at other times in a numeric format (“70% chance of rain”), whereas range judgments describe the potential amounts expected (“1–4 mm of rain”). Examination of previous research shows that both descriptions convey, in addition to the strength of expectations, pragmatic information about the communicative situation. For instance, so-called verbal probability expressions (VPE), as likely, unlikely, a chance, or not certain give some, albeit vague, probabilistic information, but carry in addition an implicit message about the sources of uncertainty, the outcome’s valence and severity, along with information about the speakers’ attitudes and their communicative intentions. VPEs are directional by drawing attention either to an outcome’s occurrence (“it is possible”) or to its non-occurrence (“it is doubtful”). In this sense they may be more informative than numbers. Uncertainties about outcomes in a distribution (continuous quantities) are alternatively expressed as interval estimates. The width of such intervals can function as a cue to credibility and expertise. Incomplete, one-sided intervals, where only one boundary is stated, imply directionality. “More than 100 people” suggests a crowd, while “less than 200” implies a shortfall. As with VPEs, directionally positive intervals are more frequent, and perhaps more neutral than negative ones. To convey expectancies and uncertainty in a balanced way, communicators may have to alternate between complementary frames.

show abstract

Social and Ethical Issues in Various Medical Procedures

Sterniuk,

Karwowski,

Racheniuk

et al. 2023

2023 Progress in Applied Electrical Engineering (PAEE)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is a “likely” amount? Representative (modal) values are considered likely even when their probabilities are low

Cited by 4 publications

References 59 publications

People prefer to predict middle, most likely quantitative outcomes (not extreme ones), but they still over-estimate their likelihood

People prefer to predict middle, most likely quantitative outcomes (not extreme ones), but they still over-estimate their likelihood

Dimensions of uncertainty communication: What is conveyed by verbal terms and numeric ranges

Social and Ethical Issues in Various Medical Procedures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About