Forecast uncertainty, typically measured quantitatively, raises questions of how best to communicate the forecast to a public with diverse numeracy skills. Here, we report an experiment examining how the numeracy of decision makers relates to the efficacy of forecast information provided in two alternative mechanisms to decision makers facing a loss event. The uncertainty mechanism states the probability of the loss event. The recommendation mechanism directly advises on which decision to take. We find that probabilities are better at inducing preventative action than are recommendations, even among those who score low on numeracy. Those who score high on numeracy use probabilities somewhat more effectively than do those who score low. But recommendations exhibit a greater trust problem that is most pronounced among those who score low on numeracy.
ApuzzoM.GebrekidanS.KirkpatrickD. D. (2020). How the world missed COVID‐19's silent spread. The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/27/world/europe/coronavirus‐spread‐asymptomatic.html
2.
BilhamE. G. (1922). A problem in economics. Nature, 109(2733), 341–342.
3.
BlissJ. P.GilsonR. D.DeatonJ. E. (1995). Human probability matching behaviour in response to alarms of varying reliability. Ergonomics, 38(11), 2300–2312.
4.
BoltonG. E.KatokE. (2018). Cry wolf or equivocate?: Credible forecast guidance in a cost‐loss game. Management Science, 64(3), 1440–1457.
5.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high‐quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.
6.
BurgmanM. A. (2016). Trusting judgements: How to get the best out of experts, (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press.
7.
CokelyE. T.GalesicM.SchulzE.GhazalS. (2012). Measuring risk literacy: The Berlin numeracy test. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(1), 25–47.
8.
CrosettoP.FilippinA. (2013). The “bomb” risk elicitation task. Joural of Risk Uncertainty, 47(1), 31–65.
9.
ErevI.SonsinoD.RothY. (2020). Decisions from valuations of unknown payoff distributions. Working Paper.
10.
FauciA. S. (2017). The Aspen Institute, Aspen.
11.
FinucaneM. L.PetersE.SlovicP. (2003). Judgment and decision making: The dance of affect and reason. In SchneiderS. L.ShanteauJ. (Eds.). Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research, (1st ed., pp. 327–364). Cambridge University Press.
12.
FoxC. R.TverskyA. (1998). A belief‐based account of decision under uncertainty. Management Science, 44(7), 879–895.
13.
GoldsteinW. M.EinhornH. J. (1987). Expression theory and the preference reversal phenomena. Psychological Review, 94(2), 236–254.
14.
GurmankinA. D.BaronJ.ArmstrongK. (2004). The effect of numerical statements of risk on trust and comfort with hypothetical physician risk communication. Medical Decision Making, 24(3), 265–271.
15.
HarrisA. J. L.CornerA. (2011). Communicating environmental risks: Clarifying the severity effect in interpretations of verbal probability expressions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37(6), 1571–1578.
16.
KarelitzT. M.BudescuD. V. (2004). You say “probable” and I say “likely”: Improving interpersonal communication with verbal probability phrases. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 10(1), 25–41.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Integrating social and behavioral sciences within the weather enterprise. The National Academies Press.
19.
OrdóñezL.BensonL.III. (1997). Decisions under time pressure: How time constraint affects risky decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71(2), 121–140.
20.
PaolacciG.ChandlerJ. (2014). Inside the Turk.: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 184–188.
21.
PetersE. (2017). Overcoming innumeracy and the use of heuristics when communicating science. In JamiesonK. H.KahanD. M.ScheufeleD. A. (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication (pp. 389–398). Oxford University Press.
22.
RaiffaH. (1997). Decision Analysis: Introductory lectures on choices under uncertainty. McGraw‐Hill.
23.
RamakrishnanV. (2017). Interview posted on Edge, Edge Foundation, Inc.
24.
RegnierE. D.MacKenzieC. A. (2018). The Hurricane decision simulator: A tool for Marine Forces in New Orleans to practice operations management in advance of a Hurricane. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 21(1), 103–120.
25.
RoulstonM. S.SmithL. A. (2004). The boy who cried wolf revisited: The impact of false alarm intolerance on cost‐loss scenarios. Weather and Forecasting, 19(2), 391–397.
26.
RoulstonM. S.BoltonG. E.KleitA.Sears‐CollinsA. (2006). A laboratory study of the benefits of including uncertainty information in weather forecasts. Weather and Forecasting, 21, 116–122.
27.
SchwartzL. M.WoloshinS.BlackW. C.WelchH. G. (1997). The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127(11), 966–972.
28.
SilverA. (2015). Watch or warning?: Perceptions, preferences, and usage of forecast information by members of the Canadian public. Meteorological Applications, 22(2), 248–255.
29.
SlovicP.LichtensteinS. (1968). Relative importance of probabilities and payoffs in risk taking. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78(3, Part 2), 1–18.
30.
StewartT. R., (1997). Forecast value: Descriptive decision studies. In KatzR. W.MurphyA. H. (Eds.), Economic value of weather and climate forecasts (pp. 147–182). Cambridge University Press.
31.
ThompsonJ. C.BrierG. W. (1955). The economic utility of weather forecasts. Monthly Weather Review, 83(11), 249–254.
32.
WallstenT. S.BudescuD. V.RapoportA.ZwickR.ForsythB. (1986). Measuring the vague meanings of probability terms. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 115(4), 348–365.
33.
WarzelC. (2020). How to actually talk to anti‐maskers. The New York Times.
34.
WeberE. U. (1994). From subjective probabilities to decision weights: The effect of asymmetric loss functions on the evaluation of uncertain outcomes and events. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 228–242.
35.
WeberE. U.HiltonD. J. (1990). Contextual effects in the interpretations of probability words: Perceived base rate and severity of events. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16(4), 781–789.
