Probability and confidence: How to improve communication of uncertainty about uncertainty in intelligence analysis

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2023-11-27 DOI:10.1002/bdm.2364
Misty C. Duke
{"title":"Probability and confidence: How to improve communication of uncertainty about uncertainty in intelligence analysis","authors":"Misty C. Duke","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2364","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Intelligence agencies communicate uncertainty to decision-makers through verbal probability phrases that correspond to numerical ranges (i.e., probability lexicons) and ordinal levels of confidence. However, decision-makers may misinterpret the relationship between these concepts and form inappropriate interpretations of intelligence analysts' uncertainty. In two experiments, four ways of conveying second-order probability to decision-makers were compared: (a) probability and confidence phrases written in the text of a report, (b) the addition of a probability lexicon, (c) the addition of a probability lexicon that varied numerical ranges according to the level of confidence (i.e., revised lexicon), and (d) a probability phrase written in text followed by a numerical range that varied according to the level of confidence. The revised lexicon was expected to improve interpretations of second-order probability. The 275 participants in Experiment 1 and 796 participants in Experiment 2 provided numerical estimates corresponding to analytic judgments provided in descriptions about three overseas military operations and also indicated their support for approving or delaying the operations. The results demonstrated that providing the numerical range in the text of the report or providing a probability lexicon, improved interpretations of probability phrases above the verbal phrase-only condition, but not interpretations of confidence. Participants were unable to correctly interpret confidence with respect to the precision of their estimate intervals and their decisions about the operations. However, in Experiments 2 and 3 the effects on these variables of providing decision-makers with information about the source of the analyst's uncertainty were examined. In Experiment 3 (<i>n</i> = 510), providing this information improved correspondence between confidence level and approval of the operation. Recommendations are provided regarding additional methods of improving decision-makers' interpretation of second-order probability conveyed in intelligence reporting.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.2364","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Intelligence agencies communicate uncertainty to decision-makers through verbal probability phrases that correspond to numerical ranges (i.e., probability lexicons) and ordinal levels of confidence. However, decision-makers may misinterpret the relationship between these concepts and form inappropriate interpretations of intelligence analysts' uncertainty. In two experiments, four ways of conveying second-order probability to decision-makers were compared: (a) probability and confidence phrases written in the text of a report, (b) the addition of a probability lexicon, (c) the addition of a probability lexicon that varied numerical ranges according to the level of confidence (i.e., revised lexicon), and (d) a probability phrase written in text followed by a numerical range that varied according to the level of confidence. The revised lexicon was expected to improve interpretations of second-order probability. The 275 participants in Experiment 1 and 796 participants in Experiment 2 provided numerical estimates corresponding to analytic judgments provided in descriptions about three overseas military operations and also indicated their support for approving or delaying the operations. The results demonstrated that providing the numerical range in the text of the report or providing a probability lexicon, improved interpretations of probability phrases above the verbal phrase-only condition, but not interpretations of confidence. Participants were unable to correctly interpret confidence with respect to the precision of their estimate intervals and their decisions about the operations. However, in Experiments 2 and 3 the effects on these variables of providing decision-makers with information about the source of the analyst's uncertainty were examined. In Experiment 3 (n = 510), providing this information improved correspondence between confidence level and approval of the operation. Recommendations are provided regarding additional methods of improving decision-makers' interpretation of second-order probability conveyed in intelligence reporting.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
概率与置信度:如何提高情报分析中不确定性的沟通
情报机构通过口头概率短语向决策者传达不确定性,这些短语对应于数字范围(即概率词汇)和有序的置信度水平。然而,决策者可能会误解这些概念之间的关系,并对情报分析师的不确定性形成不适当的解释。在两个实验中,比较了向决策者传达二阶概率的四种方式:(a)在报告文本中编写概率和信心短语,(b)添加概率词典,(c)添加根据置信度水平变化数值范围的概率词典(即修订的词典),以及(d)在文本中编写概率短语,后面跟着根据置信度水平变化的数值范围。修订后的词典有望改善对二阶概率的解释。实验1的275名被试和实验2的796名被试分别对3次海外军事行动的描述中所提供的分析判断给出了数值估计,并表示支持批准或推迟行动。结果表明,在报告文本中提供数字范围或提供概率词汇,提高了对概率短语的解释,而不是对信心的解释。参与者不能正确地解释关于他们的估计区间和他们对操作的决定的精度的信心。然而,在实验2和3中,为决策者提供有关分析师不确定性来源的信息对这些变量的影响进行了检查。在实验3 (n = 510)中,提供该信息改善了置信水平与操作批准之间的对应关系。就提高决策者对情报报告中所传达的二阶概率的解释的其他方法提出了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral Decision Making is a multidisciplinary journal with a broad base of content and style. It publishes original empirical reports, critical review papers, theoretical analyses and methodological contributions. The Journal also features book, software and decision aiding technique reviews, abstracts of important articles published elsewhere and teaching suggestions. The objective of the Journal is to present and stimulate behavioral research on decision making and to provide a forum for the evaluation of complementary, contrasting and conflicting perspectives. These perspectives include psychology, management science, sociology, political science and economics. Studies of behavioral decision making in naturalistic and applied settings are encouraged.
期刊最新文献
Prescribing Agreement Improves Judgments and Decisions Issue Information Do We Use Relatively Bad (Algorithmic) Advice? The Effects of Performance Feedback and Advice Representation on Advice Usage Evaluation of Extended Decision Outcomes Diffusion of Responsibility for Actions With Advice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1