Citation

Sirota M, Juanchich M. Acta Psychol. 2012; 141(3): 391-399.

Affiliation

School of Medicine, King's College London, Capital House, 7th floor, 42 Weston Street, SE1 3QD, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: miroslav.sirota@kcl.ac.uk.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2012, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.09.004

PMID

23098906

Abstract

Politeness theory posits that uncertainty quantifiers can be interpreted as hedging strategies and thus be perceived as communicating greater certainty than when they are interpreted as likelihood-communication devices. This has only been tested with verbal probabilities (e.g., it is possible). The present paper aims to test whether numerical probabilities can also be interpreted as face-management devices and to investigate the effect of such an interpretation on risk perception. Four experiments focused on the effect of interpretations of numerical probabilities in negative outcome predictions on risk perception (e.g., there is a 50% probability that your stocks will lose their value). Politeness expectation was manipulated by the personality of the speaker (i.e., blunt vs. tactful, Experiments 1 and 2) and according to the conversational partners' need for politeness (Experiments 3 and 4). Results show that numerical probabilities, like verbal ones, were interpreted as likelihood-communication or face-management devices and that the two interpretations led to different risk perceptions. Findings were replicated with different formats, such as percentage (e.g., 50%) and chance ratio (e.g., 1 chance in 3) and with different degrees of certainty (e.g., .30, .50 and .70). Theoretical and practical implications relevant to risk communication are presented and discussed.

Language: en