The intuitive use of contextual information in decisions made with verbal and numerical quantifiers
Open accessAbstract
Verbal and numerical formats (e.g., verbal: “low fat,” or numerical: “20% fat”) are used interchangeably to communicate nutritional information. However, prior research implies that verbal quantifiers are processed more intuitively than numerical ones. We tested this hypothesis in two pre-registered experiments measuring four indicators of processing style: (a) response time, (b) decision performance, (c) reliance on irrelevant contextual information, which we inferred from participants’ decision patterns, and (d) the level of interference from a concurrent memory task. Participants imagined they had consumed a given amount of a nutrient (represented in a pie chart) and decided whether a new quantity (either verbal or numerical) could be eaten within their guideline daily amount (GDA). The experiments used a mixed design varying format (verbal or numerical), concurrent memory load (no load, easy, and hard load in Experiment 1; no load and hard load in Experiment 2), nutrient (fat and minerals), quantity (low, medium, and high in Experiment 1; low and high in Experiment 2), and the assigned correct response for a trial (within and exceeding limits). Participants were faster and made fewer correct decisions with verbal quantifiers, and they relied more on contextual information (i.e., the identity of the nutrient involved). However, memory load did not impair decisions with verbal or numerical quantifiers. Altogether, these results suggest that verbal quantifiers are processed intuitively, slightly more so than numerical quantifiers, but that numerical quantifiers do not require much analytical processing to reach simple decisions.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Social science research shows that, in human communication, expressing (un)certainty through natural language is often preferred and perceived as more intuitive than numerical expressions.
“Second, social science research shows that, in human communication, expressing (un)certainty through natural language is often preferred and perceived as more intuitive than numerical expressions [34, 60, 106, 112, 121].”
From "I'm Not Sure, But...": Examining the Impact of Large Language Models' Uncertainty Expression on User Reliance and Trust (2024) · cites this paper as [60]
The General discussion reports that verbal quantifiers elicit intuitive processing, supporting that part of the claim, but says the findings do not establish that numerical quantifiers require analytical processing. The passages do not show that people prefer natural-language expressions of uncertainty over numerical ones in communication. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 73 · Cited by 15
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Busemeyer J. R. Johnson J. G. (2007). Computational models of decision making. In Koehler D. J. Harvey N. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of decision making (pp. 133– 154). Blackwell Publishing.
- Horstmann N. Hausmann D. Ryf S. (2010). Methods of inducing intuitive and deliberate processing modes. In Glöckner A. Witteman C. (Eds.), Foundations for tracing intuition: Challenges and methods (pp. 219– 237). Psychology Press.
- Authors
- Liu, D., Juanchich, M., Sirota, M., & Orbell, S.
- Affiliations
- Department of Psychology, University of Essex, Colchester, UK
- University of Essex (GB)
- Venue
- Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2020-02-10
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 481-494
- ISSN
- 0033-555X (ISSN-L)
- 1747-0218
- 1747-0226
- PMC
- PMC7502984
- OpenAlex
- W2945482067
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 73
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 1.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Explore Bristol Research (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Open Access at Essex (University of Essex) (acceptedVersion)
- Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- ESSEXLab (Seedcorn fund)
- experimental psychology society (EPS Small Grant)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
- Keywords
- intuitive processing, contextual information, dietary decision-making, Guideline Daily Amounts, reaction time (psychology), food labeling
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Psycholinguistics, Reaction Time, Thinking, Mathematical Concepts, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
