Jove
Visualize
Contact Us

Related Experiment Videos

When Equal Chances = Good Chances: Verbal Probabilities and the Equiprobability Effect.

Karl Halvor Teigen1

  • 1University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
|May 9, 2001
PubMed
Summary

People interpret verbal probabilities differently than numerical ones. Even with equal numerical chances, positive language like "a good chance" is used more often, reflecting a causal view of probability.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Do claims about certainty make estimates less certain?

Cognition·2024
Same author

When leaders disclose uncertainty: Effects of expressing internal and external uncertainty about a decision.

Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)·2023
Same author

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

Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)·2023
Same author

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

Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.)·2022
Same author

Are random events perceived as rare? On the relationship between perceived randomness and outcome probability.

Memory & cognition·2020
Same author

Are random events expected to be small?

Psychological research·2019
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Decision Science
  • Behavioral Economics

Background:

  • Numerical probabilities are often precisely defined (e.g., p=1/6).
  • Verbal probability expressions (e.g., "possible," "good chance") can be ambiguous.
  • Previous research suggests a potential disconnect between numerical and verbal probability assessments.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the "equiprobability effect" in verbal probability judgments.
  • To determine if people interpret equal numerical chances differently when expressed verbally.
  • To explore the underlying cognitive mechanisms driving these differences.

Main Methods:

  • Five studies were conducted using scenarios involving job applicants, lottery players, athletes, and exam candidates.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Participants were presented with situations involving equal numerical probabilities (e.g., six equally qualified candidates).
  • Participants then verbally described the likelihood of outcomes, which were analyzed for positive or negative framing.

    • Main Results:

    • A consistent "equiprobability effect" was observed where verbal probabilities were framed more positively than numerical ones, even when numerical values were identical.
    • Verbal descriptions like "entirely possible" or "a good chance" were more common than negative terms like "doubtful."
    • This effect aligns with a causal (propensity) view of probability, emphasizing facilitating and preventive factors over raw numerical values.

    Conclusions:

    • Verbal and numerical probability estimates are not always interchangeable and can reflect distinct intuitive judgments.
    • The interpretation of verbal probabilities is influenced by perceived causal factors (supportive conditions and obstacles).
    • Understanding this difference is crucial for accurate communication and decision-making involving uncertainty.