The impact of probabilistic tornado warnings on risk perceptions and responses.

IF 2.7 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-20 DOI:10.1037/xap0000486
Chao Qin, Susan Joslyn, Sonia Savelli, Julie Demuth, Rebecca Morss, Kevin Ash
{"title":"The impact of probabilistic tornado warnings on risk perceptions and responses.","authors":"Chao Qin, Susan Joslyn, Sonia Savelli, Julie Demuth, Rebecca Morss, Kevin Ash","doi":"10.1037/xap0000486","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Many warnings issued to members of the public are deterministic in that they do not include event likelihood information. This is true of the current polygon-based tornado warning used by the American National Weather Service, although the likelihood of a tornado varies within the boundaries of the polygon. To test whether adding likelihood information benefits end users, two experimental studies and one in-person interview study were conducted. The experimental studies compared five probabilistic formats, two with color and three with numeric probabilities alone, to the deterministic polygon. In both experiments, probabilistic formats led to better understanding of tornado likelihood and higher trust than the polygon alone, although color-coding led to several misunderstandings. When the polygon boundary was drawn at 10% chance, those using probabilistic formats made fewer correct shelter decisions at low probabilities and more correct shelter decisions at high probabilities compared to those using the deterministic warning, although overall decision quality, operationalized as expected value, did not differ. However, when the polygon boundary was drawn around 30%, participants with probabilistic forecasts had higher expected value. The interview study revealed that, although tornado-experienced individuals would not shelter at 10% chance, they would take intermediate actions, such as information-seeking and sharing. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48003,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied","volume":" ","pages":"206-239"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000486","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many warnings issued to members of the public are deterministic in that they do not include event likelihood information. This is true of the current polygon-based tornado warning used by the American National Weather Service, although the likelihood of a tornado varies within the boundaries of the polygon. To test whether adding likelihood information benefits end users, two experimental studies and one in-person interview study were conducted. The experimental studies compared five probabilistic formats, two with color and three with numeric probabilities alone, to the deterministic polygon. In both experiments, probabilistic formats led to better understanding of tornado likelihood and higher trust than the polygon alone, although color-coding led to several misunderstandings. When the polygon boundary was drawn at 10% chance, those using probabilistic formats made fewer correct shelter decisions at low probabilities and more correct shelter decisions at high probabilities compared to those using the deterministic warning, although overall decision quality, operationalized as expected value, did not differ. However, when the polygon boundary was drawn around 30%, participants with probabilistic forecasts had higher expected value. The interview study revealed that, although tornado-experienced individuals would not shelter at 10% chance, they would take intermediate actions, such as information-seeking and sharing. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

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
龙卷风概率预警对风险认知和反应的影响。
向公众发布的许多警告都是确定性的,不包括事件可能性信息。美国国家气象局目前使用的基于多边形的龙卷风预警就是如此,尽管龙卷风发生的可能性在多边形的范围内是不同的。为了测试增加可能性信息是否对最终用户有利,我们进行了两项实验研究和一项面谈研究。实验研究比较了五种概率格式和确定性多边形格式,其中两种使用颜色,三种仅使用数字概率。在这两项实验中,与单纯的多边形相比,概率格式能让人更好地理解龙卷风的可能性,信任度也更高,尽管颜色编码会导致一些误解。当多边形边界以 10%的概率绘制时,与使用确定性警告的人相比,使用概率格式的人在低概率时做出的正确避难决定较少,而在高概率时做出的正确避难决定较多,但总体决策质量(以预期值计算)并无差异。然而,当多边形边界划在 30% 左右时,使用概率预测的参与者的预期值更高。访谈研究显示,尽管有龙卷风经验的人不会在 10%的概率下避难,但他们会采取中间行动,如信息搜索和分享。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
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
4.90
自引率
3.80%
发文量
110
期刊介绍: The mission of the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied® is to publish original empirical investigations in experimental psychology that bridge practically oriented problems and psychological theory. The journal also publishes research aimed at developing and testing of models of cognitive processing or behavior in applied situations, including laboratory and field settings. Occasionally, review articles are considered for publication if they contribute significantly to important topics within applied experimental psychology. Areas of interest include applications of perception, attention, memory, decision making, reasoning, information processing, problem solving, learning, and skill acquisition.
期刊最新文献
A rate-them-all lineup procedure increases information but reduces discriminability. Comparing generating predictions with retrieval practice as learning strategies for primary school children. A comparison between numeric confidence ratings and verbal confidence statements. Prior knowledge and new learning: An experimental study of domain-specific knowledge. Time on task effects during interactive visual search.
×
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