Revision of opinion with verbally and numerically expressed uncertainties

Abstract Are verbal judgements of uncertainty more accurate and less conservative relative to the Bayesian calculations than are numerical judgements? This question was investigated by using a within-subject design in which subjects were required to estimate, numerically on some trials and verbally on others, the probability of one of two mutually exclusive hypotheses in a series of sequential probability revision tasks. The membership functions of the verbal phrases that were actually stated were assessed. Two alternative point values were used to represent these functions in a statistical comparison with the numerical probability judgements. The results show that verbal judgements are less conservative but more variable, and consequently less accurate, than numerical. The degree of conservatism and accuracy depends on the manner in which the membership function is converted to a point value.

[1]  Amnon Rapoport,et al.  Measuring the Vague Meanings of Probability Terms , 1986 .

[2]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Comparison of Bayesian and Regression Approaches to the Study of Information Processing in Judgment. , 1971 .

[3]  Ward Edwards,et al.  Conservatism in Complex Probabilistic Inference , 1966 .

[4]  D. Navon.  The importance of being conservative: Some reflections on human Bayesian behaviour , 1978 .

[5]  Ward Edwards,et al.  Judgment under uncertainty: Conservatism in human information processing , 1982 .

[6]  D. Budescu,et al.  Consistency in interpretation of probabilistic phrases , 1985 .

[7]  Thomas S. Wallsten,et al.  Measuring Vague Uncertainties and Understanding Their Use in Decision Making , 1990 .

[8]  W. Ducharme.  Response bias explanation of conservative human inference. , 1970 .

[9]  Thomas S. Wallsten,et al.  Using conjoint-measurement models to investigate a theory about probabilistic information processing , 1976 .

[10]  I. Erev,et al.  Verbal versus numerical probabilities: Efficiency, biases, and the preference paradox☆ , 1990 .

[11]  Du Charme,et al.  A response bias explanation of conservative human inference , 1969 .

[12]  W. Edwards,et al.  Conservatism in a simple probability inference task. , 1966, Journal of experimental psychology.

[13]  Amnon Rapoport,et al.  Direct and indirect scaling of membership functions of probability phrases , 1987 .

[14]  Ido Erev,et al.  Understanding and using linguistic uncertainties , 1988 .

[15]  Lotfi A. Zadeh,et al.  The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning-III , 1975, Inf. Sci..

[16]  Alf Zimmer,et al.  Verbal Vs. Numerical Processing of Subjective Probabilities , 1983 .

[17]  A. Tversky,et al.  Subjective Probability: A Judgment of Representativeness , 1972 .

[18]  R. Hogarth.  Insights in Decision Making , 1990 .

[19]  David V. Budescu,et al.  Decisions based on numerically and verbally expressed uncertainties. , 1988 .

[20]  D. Ellsberg.  Decision, probability, and utility: Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms , 1961 .

[21]  Von Furstenberg,et al.  Acting under uncertainty : multidisciplinary conceptions , 1990 .

[22]  Karl Halvor Teigen,et al.  The language of uncertainty , 1988 .

[23]  J. K. Clarkson,et al.  An explanation of conservatism in the bookbag-and-pokerchips situation , 1972 .

[24]  Ruth Beyth-Marom,et al.  How probable is probable? A numerical translation of verbal probability expressions , 1982 .

[25]  David V. Budescu,et al.  Dyadic decisions with numerical and verbal probabilities , 1990 .

[26]  T. Wallsten.  Conjoint-Measurement Framework for the Study of Probabilistic Information Processing. , 1972 .

[27]  Alf C. Zimmer,et al.  A Model for the Interpretation of Verbal Predictions , 1984, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[28]  L. Beach.  Accuracy and Consistency in the Revision of Subjective Probabilities , 1966 .

[29]  Ronald R. Yager,et al.  A procedure for ordering fuzzy subsets of the unit interval , 1981, Inf. Sci..