Maintaining credibility when communicating uncertainty: the role of directionality

IF 2.5 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Thinking & Reasoning Pub Date : 2020-02-09 DOI:10.1080/13546783.2020.1723694
Sarah C. Jenkins, Adam J. L. Harris
{"title":"Maintaining credibility when communicating uncertainty: the role of directionality","authors":"Sarah C. Jenkins, Adam J. L. Harris","doi":"10.1080/13546783.2020.1723694","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Risk communicators often need to communicate probabilistic predictions. On occasion, an event with 10% likelihood will occur, or one with 90% likelihood will not – a probabilistically unexpected outcome. Previous research manipulating communication format has found that communicators lose more credibility and are perceived as less correct if an “unlikely” event occurs than if a “10–30% likelihood” event occurs. We suggest “directionality–outcome congruence” underlies the perception of predictions as “erroneous”. For example, the negatively directional term “unlikely” led to harsher ratings because the outcome was counter to the original focus of the prediction (on the event’s non-occurrence). In the context of both probabilistically unexpected (Experiment 1) and expected (Experiment 2) outcomes, we find that communicators are perceived as less credible and less correct given “directionality–outcome incongruence”. Communicators should thus carefully consider the directionality implicit in their risk communications to maximise communication effectiveness.","PeriodicalId":47270,"journal":{"name":"Thinking & Reasoning","volume":"69 1","pages":"97 - 123"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Thinking & Reasoning","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2020.1723694","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Abstract Risk communicators often need to communicate probabilistic predictions. On occasion, an event with 10% likelihood will occur, or one with 90% likelihood will not – a probabilistically unexpected outcome. Previous research manipulating communication format has found that communicators lose more credibility and are perceived as less correct if an “unlikely” event occurs than if a “10–30% likelihood” event occurs. We suggest “directionality–outcome congruence” underlies the perception of predictions as “erroneous”. For example, the negatively directional term “unlikely” led to harsher ratings because the outcome was counter to the original focus of the prediction (on the event’s non-occurrence). In the context of both probabilistically unexpected (Experiment 1) and expected (Experiment 2) outcomes, we find that communicators are perceived as less credible and less correct given “directionality–outcome incongruence”. Communicators should thus carefully consider the directionality implicit in their risk communications to maximise communication effectiveness.
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
在沟通不确定性时保持可信度:方向性的作用
风险传播者经常需要传播概率预测。有时,有10%可能性的事件会发生,或者有90%可能性的事件不会发生——这是概率上意想不到的结果。先前操纵沟通格式的研究发现,如果发生“不太可能”的事件,与发生“10-30%可能性”的事件相比,沟通者会失去更多的可信度,并且被认为不太正确。我们认为“方向性-结果一致性”是预测“错误”的基础。例如,负面定向术语“不太可能”导致更严厉的评级,因为结果与预测的原始焦点(事件不发生)相反。在概率非预期(实验1)和预期(实验2)结果的背景下,我们发现在“方向性-结果不一致”的情况下,沟通者被认为是不可信和不正确的。因此,沟通人员应仔细考虑风险沟通中隐含的方向性,以最大限度地提高沟通效果。
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
Thinking & Reasoning
Thinking & Reasoning PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
11.50%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
The skeptical import of motivated reasoning: a closer look at the evidence When word frequency meets word order: factors determining multiply-constrained creative association Mindset effects on the regulation of thinking time in problem-solving Elementary probabilistic operations: a framework for probabilistic reasoning Testing the underlying structure of unfounded beliefs about COVID-19 around the world
×
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