Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The framing of risks and the communication of subjective probabilities for victimizations

  • Published:
Quality & Quantity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Banks S.M., Salovey P., Greener S., Rothman A.J., Moyer A., Beauvais J., Epel E.: The effects of message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychol. 14, 178–184 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beuer-Krüssel M., Krumpal I.: Der Einfluss von Häufigkeitsformaten auf die Messung von subjektiven Wahrscheinlichkeiten. Methoden, Daten und Analysen: Zeitschrift für empirische Sozialforschung 3, 31–57 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradburn N., Miles C.: Vague quantifiers. Public Opin. Quart. 43, 92–101 (1979)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budescu D., Wallsten T.S.: Processing linguistic probabilities: general principles and empirical evidence. In: Busemeyer, J., Medin, D.L., Hastie, R. (eds) Decision Making from a Cognitive Perspective, pp. 275–318. Academic Press, San Diego (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  • Conrad F.G., Brown N., Cashman E.: Strategies for estimating behavioural frequency in survey interviews. Memory 6, 339–366 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coutts, E.: Context effects in the measurement of subjective probabilities in surveys. Master Thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Konstanz (2002)

  • Edwards A., Elwyn G., Covey J., Matthews E., Pill R.: Presenting risk information—a review of the effects of “framing” and other manipulations on patient outcomes. J. Health Commun. 6, 61–82 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh A.K., Ghosh K.: Translating evidence-based information into effective risk communication: current challenges and opportunities. J. Lab. Clin. Med. 145, 171–180 (2005). doi:10.1016/j.lab.2005.02.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goocher B.E.: Effects of attitude and experience on the selection of frequency adverbs. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 4, 193–195 (1965)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grice H.P.: Logik und Konversation. In: Meggle, G. (eds) Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, pp. 243–265. Suhrkamp-Verlag, Frankfurt am Main (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hakel M.D.: How often is often?. Am. Psychol. 25, 533–534 (1969)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammerton M.: How much is a large part?. Appl. Ergonom. 7, 10–12 (1976)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffrage U., Lindsey S., Hertwig R., Gigerenzer G.: Communicating statistical information. Science 290, 2261–2262 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hörmann H.: The calculating listener, or how many are einige, mehrere und ein paar. In: Bauerle, R., von Schwarze, C., Stechow, A. (eds) Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, pp. 221–234. De Gruyter, Berlin (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasper J., Goel R., Einarson A., Gallo M., Koren G.: Effects of framing on teratogenic risk perception in pregnant women. Lancet 358, 1237–1238 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D., Tversky A.: Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47, 263–291 (1979)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karelitz T.M., Budescu D.: You say “probable” and I say “likely”: improving interpersonal communication with verbal probability phrases. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 10, 25–41 (2004). doi:10.1037/1076-898X.10.1.25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King G., Murray C.J.L., Salomon J.A., Tandon A.: Enhancing the validity and cross-cultural comparability of measurement in survey research. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 98, 191–207 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreuter F.: Kriminalitätsfurcht: Messung und methodische Probleme. Leske & Budrich, Opladen (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • Marteau T.M.: Framing of information: its influence upon decisions of doctors and patients. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 28, 89–94 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeil B.J., Pauker S.G., Sox H.C., Tversky A.: On the elucidation of preferences for alternative therapies. New Engl. J. Med. 306, 1259–1262 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menon G., Raghubir P., Schwarz N.: Behavioral frequency judgments: an accessibility-diagnosticity framework. J. Consumer Res. 22, 212–228 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merz J.F., Druzdzel M.J., Mazur D.J.: Verbal expressions of probability in informed consent litigation. Med. Decis. Mak. 11, 273–281 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moxey L.M., Sanford A.J.: Prior expectation and the interpretation of natural language quantifiers. Eur. J. Cogn. Psychol. 5, 73–91 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moxey L.M., Sanford A.J.: Communicating quantities: a review of psycholinguistic evidence of how expressions determine perspective. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 14, 237–255 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murakami H.: South of the Border, West of the Sun. Vintage, New York (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakao M.A., Axelrod S.: Numbers are better than words—verbal specifications of frequency have no place in medicine. Am. J. Med. 74, 1061–1065 (1983)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newstead S.E., Coventry K.R.: The role of context and functionality in the interpretation of quantifiers. Eur. J. Cogn. Psychol. 12, 243–259 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pepper S., Prytulak L.S.: Sometimes frequently means seldom: context effects in the interpretation of quantitative expressions. J. Res. Pers. 8, 95–101 (1974)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters E., McCaul K., Stefanek M., Nelson W.: A heuristic approach to understanding cancer risk perception: contributions from judgement and decision-making research. Ann. Behav. Med. 31, 45–52 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reyna V.: The language of possibility and probability: effects of negation on meaning. Mem. Cogn. 9, 642–650 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaeffer N.C.: Hardly ever or constantly? Group comparisons using vague quantifiers. Public Opin. Quart. 55, 395–423 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnell R., Kreuter F.: Das DEFECT-Projekt: sampling-errors und nonsampling-errors in komplexen Bevölkerungsstichproben. ZUMA-Nachrichten 47, 89–101 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz N., Hippler H.J., Deutsch B., Strack F.: Response categories: effects on behavioural reports and comparative judgments. Public Opin. Quart. 49, 388–395 (1985)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz N., Scheuring B.: Judgments of relationship satisfaction: inter- and intraindividual comparison strategies as a function of questionnaire structure. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 18, 485–496 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz N., Scheuring B.: Selbstberichtete Verhaltens- und Symptomhäufigkeiten: Was Befragte aus Antwortvorgaben des Fragebogens lernen. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie 22, 197–208 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson R.H.: The specific meanings of certain terms indicating differing degrees of frequency. Quart. J. Speech 30, 328–330 (1944)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland H.J., Lockwood G.A., Trichtler D.L., Sem F., Brooks L., Till J.E.: Communicating probabilistic information to cancer patients—is there “noise” on the line?. Soc. Sci. Med. 32, 725–731 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teigen K.H.: Overestimation of subjective probabilities. Scand. J. Psychol. 15, 56–62 (1974)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky K.A., Kahneman D.: The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211, 453–458 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wänke M.: Conversational norms and the interpretation of vague quantifiers. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 16, 301–307 (2002). doi:10.1002/acp.787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallsten T.S., Budescu D., Zwick R., Kemp S.M.: Preferences and reasons for communicating probabilistic information in numerical or verbal terms. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 31, 135–138 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber E.U., Hilton D.J.: Contextual effects in the interpretation of probability words—perceived base rate and severity of events. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 16, 781–789 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welkenhuysen M., Evers-Kiebooms G., D’Ydewalle G.: The language of uncertainty in genetic risk communication: framing and verbal versus numerical information. Patient Educ. Couns. 43, 179–187 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl P.D., Wells G.L.: Measuring psychological uncertainty: verbal versus numeric methods. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 2, 343–364 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woloshin S., Schwartz L.M., Black W.C., Welch H.G.: Women’s perceptions of breast cancer risk: How you ask matters. Med. Decis. Mak. 19, 221–229 (1999). doi:10.1177/0272989X9901900301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright D., Gaskell G., O’Muircheartaigh C.: How much is “Quite a bit”? Mapping between numerical values and vague quantifiers. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 8, 479–496 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmer A.C.: Verbal versus numerical processing of subjective probabilities. In: Scholz, R.W. (eds) Decision Making Under Uncertainty, pp. 159–182. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1983)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, University of Leipzig, Beethovenstr. 15, 04107, Leipzig, Germany

    Ivar Krumpal, Dorothea Böhr & Elias Naumann

  2. Chair of Sociology, in particular of Modeling and Simulation, CLU E6, Clausiusstrasse 50, 8092, Zurich, Switzerland

    Heiko Rauhut

Authors
  1. Ivar Krumpal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heiko Rauhut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dorothea Böhr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elias Naumann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Ivar Krumpal or Heiko Rauhut.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Krumpal, I., Rauhut, H., Böhr, D. et al. The framing of risks and the communication of subjective probabilities for victimizations. Qual Quant 45, 1331–1348 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-010-9336-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-010-9336-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation