关于确定性的说法是否会降低估算的确定性?

IF 2.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Cognition Pub Date : 2024-08-13 DOI:10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105911
{"title":"关于确定性的说法是否会降低估算的确定性?","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105911","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Predictions and estimates are sometimes qualified as <em>certain.</em> This epistemic marker occupies a privileged position at the top of scales of verbal probability expressions, reflecting probabilities close to 1. But such statements have rarely been compared to plain, unqualified statements in which certainty is not mentioned. We examined in nine studies (<em>N</em> = 2784) whether statements explicitly claimed to be certain are perceived as (1) more (or less) credible, (2) more (or less) precise, and (3) more (or less) strongly based upon evidence, compared to plain, unmarked declarative statements. We find, in apparent contrast with assumptions made by the standard scales, that “certain” are often judged to be less trustworthy, less reliable, and held with lower confidence than unmarked statements. Plain, declarative statements are further assumed to be more precise, while certainty implies that more extreme outcomes are possible. When it is certain that Henry made four errors, it is clear he did not commit less than four, but he might have committed five errors or more. Thus certainty can indicate lower bounds of an interval whose upper bounds are not defined, and certainty statements are consequently more ambiguous than estimates that do not mention certainty. At least-interpretations of certainty affect the interpretation of options in risky choice problems, where “200 lives will be saved” was deemed by a majority to mean exactly 200, while “it is certain that 200 will be saved”, could mean 200–600 lives. We also find that credibility is affected by type of certainty, with impersonal certainty (“it is certain”) perceived to be more accurate and persuasive than personal certainty (“I am certain”), especially in predictions of future events. Moreover, mentions of certainty can reveal that that a speaker's estimate is based on subjective judgments and guesswork rather than upon objective evidence. These findings have implications for communication. Estimates can appear more consensual when claims of certainty are omitted. To convey certainty it may be better not to mention that one is certain.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48455,"journal":{"name":"Cognition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do claims about certainty make estimates less certain?\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105911\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Predictions and estimates are sometimes qualified as <em>certain.</em> This epistemic marker occupies a privileged position at the top of scales of verbal probability expressions, reflecting probabilities close to 1. But such statements have rarely been compared to plain, unqualified statements in which certainty is not mentioned. We examined in nine studies (<em>N</em> = 2784) whether statements explicitly claimed to be certain are perceived as (1) more (or less) credible, (2) more (or less) precise, and (3) more (or less) strongly based upon evidence, compared to plain, unmarked declarative statements. We find, in apparent contrast with assumptions made by the standard scales, that “certain” are often judged to be less trustworthy, less reliable, and held with lower confidence than unmarked statements. Plain, declarative statements are further assumed to be more precise, while certainty implies that more extreme outcomes are possible. When it is certain that Henry made four errors, it is clear he did not commit less than four, but he might have committed five errors or more. Thus certainty can indicate lower bounds of an interval whose upper bounds are not defined, and certainty statements are consequently more ambiguous than estimates that do not mention certainty. At least-interpretations of certainty affect the interpretation of options in risky choice problems, where “200 lives will be saved” was deemed by a majority to mean exactly 200, while “it is certain that 200 will be saved”, could mean 200–600 lives. We also find that credibility is affected by type of certainty, with impersonal certainty (“it is certain”) perceived to be more accurate and persuasive than personal certainty (“I am certain”), especially in predictions of future events. Moreover, mentions of certainty can reveal that that a speaker's estimate is based on subjective judgments and guesswork rather than upon objective evidence. These findings have implications for communication. Estimates can appear more consensual when claims of certainty are omitted. To convey certainty it may be better not to mention that one is certain.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognition\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027724001975\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027724001975","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

预测和估计有时被限定为确定。这种认识论标记在口头概率表达中占据着最重要的位置,反映了接近 1 的概率。但是,这种表述很少与未提及确定性的普通、无定性表述进行比较。我们在九项研究(N = 2784)中考察了明确声称确定性的陈述与普通、无标记的陈述相比,是否被认为(1)更可信(或更不可信),(2)更精确(或更精确),以及(3)更有(或更没有)强有力的证据基础。我们发现,与标准量表的假设形成明显对比的是,"确定 "往往被判定为比无标记陈述更不可信、更不可靠、信心更低。普通的陈述性陈述被进一步假定为更精确,而确定性陈述则意味着可能出现更极端的结果。当确定亨利犯了四个错误时,显然他犯的错误不会少于四个,但他可能犯了五个或更多的错误。因此,确定性可以表示一个区间的下限,而这个区间的上限是不确定的。至少,对确定性的解释会影响风险选择题中对选项的解释,在风险选择题中,大多数人认为 "200 条生命将被挽救 "恰好意味着 200 条生命,而 "可以肯定 200 条生命将被挽救 "则可能意味着 200-600 条生命。我们还发现,可信度受确定性类型的影响,非个人确定性("可以肯定")被认为比个人确定性("我可以肯定")更准确、更有说服力,尤其是在预测未来事件时。此外,"确定性 "的提法可以表明说话者的估计是基于主观判断和猜测,而不是客观证据。这些发现对交流有一定的影响。当省略确定性的说法时,估计会显得更有共识。为了表达确定性,最好不要提及自己是确定的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Do claims about certainty make estimates less certain?

Predictions and estimates are sometimes qualified as certain. This epistemic marker occupies a privileged position at the top of scales of verbal probability expressions, reflecting probabilities close to 1. But such statements have rarely been compared to plain, unqualified statements in which certainty is not mentioned. We examined in nine studies (N = 2784) whether statements explicitly claimed to be certain are perceived as (1) more (or less) credible, (2) more (or less) precise, and (3) more (or less) strongly based upon evidence, compared to plain, unmarked declarative statements. We find, in apparent contrast with assumptions made by the standard scales, that “certain” are often judged to be less trustworthy, less reliable, and held with lower confidence than unmarked statements. Plain, declarative statements are further assumed to be more precise, while certainty implies that more extreme outcomes are possible. When it is certain that Henry made four errors, it is clear he did not commit less than four, but he might have committed five errors or more. Thus certainty can indicate lower bounds of an interval whose upper bounds are not defined, and certainty statements are consequently more ambiguous than estimates that do not mention certainty. At least-interpretations of certainty affect the interpretation of options in risky choice problems, where “200 lives will be saved” was deemed by a majority to mean exactly 200, while “it is certain that 200 will be saved”, could mean 200–600 lives. We also find that credibility is affected by type of certainty, with impersonal certainty (“it is certain”) perceived to be more accurate and persuasive than personal certainty (“I am certain”), especially in predictions of future events. Moreover, mentions of certainty can reveal that that a speaker's estimate is based on subjective judgments and guesswork rather than upon objective evidence. These findings have implications for communication. Estimates can appear more consensual when claims of certainty are omitted. To convey certainty it may be better not to mention that one is certain.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cognition
Cognition PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
283
期刊介绍: Cognition is an international journal that publishes theoretical and experimental papers on the study of the mind. It covers a wide variety of subjects concerning all the different aspects of cognition, ranging from biological and experimental studies to formal analysis. Contributions from the fields of psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, computer science, mathematics, ethology and philosophy are welcome in this journal provided that they have some bearing on the functioning of the mind. In addition, the journal serves as a forum for discussion of social and political aspects of cognitive science.
期刊最新文献
Absolute-judgment models better predict eyewitness decision-making than do relative-judgment models. Readers encode absolute letter positions The primacy of taxonomic semantic organization over thematic semantic organization during picture naming Do early meanings of negation map onto a fully-fledged negation concept in infancy? Speech-to-song transformation in perception and production
×
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