Estimating the probability of negative events

How well we are attuned to the statistics of our environment is a fundamental question in understanding human behaviour. It seems particularly important to be able to provide accurate assessments of the probability with which negative events occur so as to guide rational choice of preventative actions. One question that arises here is whether or not our probability estimates for negative events are systematically biased by their severity. In a minimal experimental context involving an unambiguous, objective representation of probability, we found that participants judged a controllable event as more likely to occur when its utility was extremely negative than when it was more neutral. A decision-theoretic explanation based on loss function asymmetries is advanced which supports the claim that probability estimates are not intrinsically biased by utilities.

[1]  J. Scott Armstrong,et al.  Principles of forecasting , 2001 .

[2]  M. Sherif,et al.  An outline of social psychology , 1948 .

[3]  W. Edwards,et al.  Probability-preferences in gambling. , 1953, The American journal of psychology.

[4]  Paul Goodwin,et al.  Statistical correction of judgmental point forecasts and decisions , 1996 .

[5]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability , 1973 .

[6]  Robert R. Blake,et al.  Comprehension of own and of outgroup positions under intergroup competition , 1961 .

[7]  R. W. Marks,et al.  The effect of probability, desirability, and "privilege" on the stated expectations of children. , 1951, Journal of personality.

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

[9]  Michael Lawrence,et al.  A field study of sales forecasting accuracy and processes , 2000, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[10]  Roy Batchelor,et al.  Rationality testing under asymmetric loss , 1998 .

[11]  Elisha Y. Babad,et al.  Wishful Thinking—Against All Odds , 1991 .

[12]  H. Morlock,et al.  Effect of the Desirability of Outcomes on Decision Making , 1964 .

[13]  Thomas S. Wallsten,et al.  Base rate effects on the interpretations of probability and frequency expressions , 1986 .

[14]  Ward Edwards,et al.  Utility, subjective probability, their interaction, and variance preferences , 1962 .

[15]  M. A. Borges,et al.  Common verbal quantifiers: Usage and interpretation , 1974 .

[16]  Elke U. Weber,et al.  The Interpretation of 'Likely' Depends on the Context, But 70% is 70% - Right? The Influence of Associative Processes on Perceived Certainty , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[17]  A. Solow,et al.  A Simple Model of Over-forecasting , 1988 .

[18]  Marek J Druzdzel,et al.  Verbal Expressions of Probability in Informed Consent Litigation , 1991, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[19]  Helmut Jungermann,et al.  Rarely occurring headaches and rarely occurring blindness: Is rarely=rarely? The meaning of verbal frequentistic labels in specific medical contexts. , 1996 .

[20]  D. G. Pruitt,et al.  STRENGTH OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE VALUE OF AN EVENT AND ITS SUBJECTIVE PROBABILITY AS A FUNCTION OF METHOD OF MEASUREMENT. , 1965, Journal of experimental psychology.

[21]  Vaughn J. Crandall,et al.  Expectancy Statements and Decision Times as Functions of Objective Probabilities and Reinforcement Values , 1955 .

[22]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[23]  C. E. M. Hansel,et al.  A QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF MEANING , 1958 .

[24]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[25]  D. Mandel.  Violations of coherence in subjective probability: A representational and assessment processes account , 2008, Cognition.

[26]  Michael H. Birnbaum,et al.  Utility Measurement: Configural-Weight Theory and the Judge's Point of View , 1992 .

[27]  Jean-François Bonnefon,et al.  Tactful or Doubtful? , 2006, Psychological science.

[28]  B. Verplanken.  The effect of catastrophe potential on the interpretation of numerical probabilities of the occurrence of hazards , 1997 .

[29]  E. Weber.  From Subjective Probabilities to Decision Weights: The Effect of Asymmetric Loss Functions on the Evaluation of Uncertain Outcomes and Events , 1994 .

[30]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Venture Theory: A Model of Decision Weights , 1990 .

[31]  Clive W. J. Granger.  Prediction with a generalized cost of error function , 2001 .

[32]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[33]  Klaus Wertenbroch,et al.  The Value Heuristic in Judgments of Relative Frequency , 2008, Psychological science.

[34]  C Heath,et al.  The evaluation gap in performance perceptions: illusory perceptions of groups and individuals. , 1996, The Journal of applied psychology.

[35]  N. Franklin,et al.  Wishful thinking and source monitoring , 2005, Memory & cognition.

[36]  Elke U. Weber,et al.  Contextual Effects in the Interpretations of Probability Words: Perceived Base Rate and Severity of Events , 1990 .

[37]  P. C. Price,et al.  Wishful thinking in the prediction of competitive outcomes , 2000 .

[38]  Z. Križan,et al.  The influence of outcome desirability on optimism. , 2007, Psychological bulletin.

[39]  William P. Bottom,et al.  Judgment Accuracy and the Asymmetric Cost of Errors in Distributive Bargaining , 1999 .

[40]  D. C. Howell.  Statistical Methods for Psychology , 1987 .

[41]  David V. Budescu,et al.  The elusive wishful thinking effect , 1995 .

[42]  M. Birnbaum.  Human research and data collection via the internet. , 2004, Annual review of psychology.

[43]  Marcus O'Connor,et al.  Judgmental forecasting in the presence of loss functions , 2005 .

[44]  D. Budescu,et al.  Predicting World Cup results: Do goals seem more likely when they pay off? , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[45]  Gwenn W. Gröndal,et al.  Meta-analytic procedures for social research , 1993 .

[46]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Ambiguity and Uncertainty in Probabilistic Inference. , 1985 .

[47]  H. Morlock,et al.  The effect of outcome desirability on information required for decisions. , 1967, Behavioral science.

[48]  R. Rosenthal,et al.  “Some Things You Learn Aren't So”: Cohen's Paradox, Asch's Paradigm, and the Interpretation of Interaction , 1995 .

[49]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Facts versus fears , 1982 .

[50]  M. Birnbaum,et al.  Source Credibility in Social Judgment : Bias , Expertise , and the Judge ' s Point of View , 1979 .

[51]  B. Cohen.  The Effect of Outcome Desirability on Comparisons of Numerical and Linguistic Probabilities , 1986 .

[52]  Clive W. J. Granger,et al.  Prediction with a generalized cost of error function , 1969 .

[53]  M. Sahani,et al.  Implicit knowledge of visual uncertainty guides decisions with asymmetric outcomes. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[54]  H. Raiffa,et al.  Introduction to Statistical Decision Theory , 1996 .

[55]  D. C. Howell.  Statistical methods for psychology, 3rd ed. , 1992 .

[56]  M. Landy,et al.  Visual estimation under risk. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[57]  F. W. Irwin,et al.  Stated expectations as functions of probability and desirability of outcomes. , 1953, Journal of personality.

[58]  Richard Warner,et al.  Aspects of Reason , 2001 .

[59]  Thomas S. Wallsten,et al.  The effect of constant outcome value on judgments and decision making given linguistic probabilities , 1992 .

[60]  P. Slovic,et al.  Value as a Determiner of Subjective Probability , 1966 .