We might be wrong, but we think that hedging doesn't protect your reputation

Area of Science:

• Cognitive Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Linguistics

Background:

• Humans rely on others for knowledge, necessitating evaluation of information sources.
• Two updating strategies exist: expectation-based (prone to confirmation bias) and outcome-based (more accurate).
• Both strategies may impact trust and cooperation in communication.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate if speakers can protect their reputation when making low-probability claims.
• To examine the role of hedging with evidential language in reputation management.
• To assess if hedging is effective with or without knowledge of claim outcomes.

Main Methods:

• Explored expectation-based and outcome-based updating strategies.
• Investigated the use of evidential language, including weaker propositional attitudes and double hedges.
• Analyzed speaker reputation protection under conditions of low prior probability claims.

Main Results:

• Both expectation-based and outcome-based updating methods were found to be robust to hedging.
• No significant evidence supported a protective effect of hedging on speaker reputation.
• Hedging with evidential language did not appear to safeguard reputation for low-probability claims.

Conclusions:

• Hedging with evidential language may not be sufficient for speakers to protect their reputation when making uncertain claims.
• Further research is needed to identify additional factors that enable successful hedging and maintain trust.
• Understanding these dynamics is crucial for effective communication and information reliability.