Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
D. Budescu, T. Wallsten (1995)
Processing Linguistic Probabilities: General Principles and Empirical EvidencePsychology of Learning and Motivation, 32
H. Sutherland, G. Lockwood, D. Tritchler, F. Sem, L. Brooks, J. Till (1991)
Communicating probabilistic information to cancer patients: is there 'noise' on the line?Social science & medicine, 32 6
M. Nakao, S. Axelrod (1983)
Numbers are better than words. Verbal specifications of frequency have no place in medicine.The American journal of medicine, 74 6
J. Busemeyer, D. Medin, R. Hastie (1995)
Decision making from a cognitive perspective
N. Schaeffer (1991)
HARDLY EVER OR CONSTANTLY? GROUP COMPARISONS USING VAGUE QUANTIFIERSPublic Opinion Quarterly, 55
T. Wallsten, D. Budescu, R. Zwick, S. Kemp (1993)
Preferences and reasons for communicating probabilistic information in verbal or numerical termsBulletin of the psychonomic society, 31
Gary King, C. Murray, J. Salomon, A. Tandon (2003)
Enhancing the Validity and Cross-Cultural Comparability of Measurement in Survey ResearchAmerican Political Science Review, 98
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
L. Moxey, A. Sanford (1993)
Prior expectation and the interpretation of natural language quantifiersEuropean Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5
V. Reyna (1981)
The language of possibility and probability: Effects of negation on meaningMemory & Cognition, 9
N. Schwarz, Hans-Jürgen Hippler, Brigitte Deutsch, F. Strack (1985)
Response Scales: Effects of Category Range on Reported Behavior and Comparative JudgmentsPublic Opinion Quarterly, 49
T.S. Wallsten, D. Budescu, R. Zwick, S.M. Kemp (1993)
Preferences and reasons for communicating probabilistic information in numerical or verbal termsBull. Psychon. Soc., 31
E. Suh, S. Kagan (2011)
Detaching Her from Her Social Roles: Korean Immigrant Women's Perceptions of Breast Cancer
Paul Windschitl, G. Wells (2004)
Measuring Psychological Uncertainty : Verbal Versus Numeric Methods
D. Kahneman (2007)
Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision under Risk Author ( s ) :
Tzur Karelitz, D. Budescu (2004)
You say "probable" and I say "likely": improving interpersonal communication with verbal probability phrases.Journal of experimental psychology. Applied, 10 1
S. Woloshin, L.M. Schwartz, W.C. Black, H.G. Welch (1999)
Women’s perceptions of breast cancer risk: How you ask mattersMed. Decis. Mak., 19
S. Newstead, K. Coventry (2000)
The role of context and functionality in the interpretation of quantifiersEuropean Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 12
Buell Goocher (1965)
Effects of attitude and experience on the selection of frequency adverbsJournal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 4
(2002)
Context effects in the measurement of subjective probabilities in surveys. Master Thesis, Department of Psychology: University of Konstanz
(1983)
The calculating listener, or how many are einige, mehrere und ein paar
Ludger Hoffmann (2010)
Logik und Konversation
N. Schwarz, B. Scheuring (1991)
Selbstberichtete Verhaltens- und Symptomhäufigkeiten : Was Befragte aus Antwortvorgaben des Fragebogens lernen, 21
Elke Weber, D. Hilton (1990)
Contextual Effects in the Interpretations of Probability Words: Perceived Base Rate and Severity of Events
E. Peters, K. Mccaul, M. Stefanek, W. Nelson (2006)
A heuristics approach to understanding cancer risk perception: Contributions from judgment and decision-making researchAnnals of Behavioral Medicine, 31
M. Hammerton (1976)
How much is a large part?Applied ergonomics, 7 1
M. Welkenhuysen, G. Evers‐Kiebooms, G. d'Ydewalle (2001)
The language of uncertainty in genetic risk communication: framing and verbal versus numerical information.Patient education and counseling, 43 2
A. Zimmer (1983)
Verbal Vs. Numerical Processing of Subjective ProbabilitiesAdvances in psychology, 16
N. Bradburn, C. Miles (1979)
Vague quantifiersPublic Opin. Quart., 43
N. Schwarz, H.J. Hippler, B. Deutsch, F. Strack (1985)
Response categories: effects on behavioural reports and comparative judgmentsPublic Opin. Quart., 49
J. Merz, Marek Druzdzel, D. Mazur (1991)
Verbal Expressions of Probability in Informed Consent LitigationMedical Decision Making, 11
R. Schnell, F. Kreuter (2000)
Das DEFECT-Projekt: Sampling-Errors und Nonsampling-Errors in komplexen Bevölkerungsstichproben, 24
S. Banks, P. Salovey, S. Greener, Alexander Rothman, A. Moyer, J. Beauvais, Elissa Epel (1995)
The effects of message framing on mammography utilization.Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association, 14 2
K. Teigen (1974)
Overestimation of subjective probabilitiesScandinavian Journal of Psychology, 15
S. Pepper, L. Prytulak (1974)
Sometimes frequently means seldom: Context effects in the interpretation of quantitative expressions ☆Journal of Research in Personality, 8
D. Wright, G. Gaskell, C. O'muircheartaigh (1994)
How much is 'quite a bit'? Mapping between numerical values and vague quantifiersApplied Cognitive Psychology, 8
Mandy Beuer-Krüssel, Ivar Krumpal (2009)
Der Einfluss von Häufigkeitsformaten auf die Messung von subjektiven Wahrscheinlichkeiten, 3
A. Edwards, G. Elwyn, J. Covey, E. Matthews, R. Pill (2001)
Presenting risk information--a review of the effects of "framing" and other manipulations on patient outcomes.Journal of health communication, 6 1
D. Kahneman, A. Tversky (1979)
Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk Econometrica 47
R. Simpson (1944)
The specific meanings of certain terms indicating differing degrees of frequency.Quarterly Journal of Speech, 30
M. Wänke (2002)
Conversational norms and the interpretation of vague quantifiersApplied Cognitive Psychology, 16
Haruki Murakami (1992)
South of the Border, West of the Sun
D. Kahneman, A. Tversky (1979)
Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under riskEconometrica, 47
L. Moxey, A. Sanford (2000)
Communicating quantities: a review of psycholinguistic evidence of how expressions determine perspectivesApplied Cognitive Psychology, 14
(2000)
Response categories: effects on behavioural reports
R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, A. Stechow (1983)
Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language
A. Tversky, D. Kahneman (1981)
The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.Science, 211 4481
F. Kreuter (2002)
Kriminalitätsfurcht: Messung und methodische Probleme
G. Meggle (1979)
Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung
M. Hakel (1968)
How often is often?The American psychologist, 23 7
U. Hoffrage, S. Lindsey, R. Hertwig, G. Gigerenzer (2000)
Communicating Statistical InformationScience, 290
A. Ghosh, K. Ghosh (2005)
Translating evidence-based information into effective risk communication: current challenges and opportunities.The Journal of laboratory and clinical medicine, 145 4
Theresa Marteau (1989)
Framing of information: its influence upon decisions of doctors and patients.The British journal of social psychology, 28 ( Pt 1)
B. McNeil, S. Pauker, H. Sox, A. Tversky (1982)
On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies.The New England journal of medicine, 306 21
J. Jasper, R. Goel, A. Einarson, M. Gallo, G. Koren (2001)
Effects of framing on teratogenic risk perception in pregnant womenLancet, 358
Jackie Bardenwerper (2012)
On The Line
F. Conrad, N. Brown, Erin Cashman (1998)
Strategies for estimating behavioural frequency in survey interviews.Memory, 6 4
N. Schwarz, Bettina Scheuring (1988)
Judgments of relationship satisfaction: Inter- and intraindividual comparisons as a function of questionnaire structureEuropean Journal of Social Psychology, 18
G. Menon, Priya Raghubir, N. Schwarz (1995)
BEHAVIORAL FREQUENCY JUDGMENTS - AN ACCESSIBILITY DIAGNOSTICITY FRAMEWORKJournal of Consumer Research, 22
A.C. Zimmer (1983)
Decision Making Under Uncertainty
Madeleine Gekiere (1986)
And I SayChicago Review, 35
What does ‘likely’ mean, when respondents estimate the risk to become a victim of crime? Victimization risks can either be interpreted as gains (“being spared of offences”) or as losses (“becoming a victim of crime”). Because losses are perceived as more severe, respondents will state lower subjective victimization probabilities in the loss-frame, compared to the gain-frame. We demonstrate such a framing-effect with data from an experimental survey. Furthermore, we show that the meaning of vague quantifiers varies with the frequency and the severity of the event. Respondents assign to the same vague quantifiers (e.g. ‘unlikely’) higher likelihoods in terms of percentages for frequent and for less severe events than for infrequent and for severe events. In conclusion, respondents do not use vague quantifiers consistently so that it is problematic to compare subjective risks for different victimizations.
Quality & Quantity – Springer Journals
Published: Jun 23, 2010
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.