Empirical scaling of common verbal phrases associated with numerical probabilities
Open accessThe 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?
Although individuals have internally consistent interpretation of words for describing probabilities, these interpretations can vary substantially from one person to another.
“Many studies have shown that although individuals have internally consistent interpretation of words for describing probabilities (e.g., likely, probably), these interpretations can vary substantially from one person to another [17,22,74].”
From Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty (2021) · cites this paper as [74]
The Results report satisfactory stability for a phrase repeated in the questionnaire, but do not establish that each individual's interpretations are internally consistent. The Discussion says many phrases showed encouraging consistency across respondents; it identifies substantially different results in other studies and attributes those differences to context, not necessarily to variation from person to person. (LLM, conf=0.82)
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.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- COHEN, J., DEARNLEY, E. J., & HANSEL, C. E. M. A quantitative study of meaning. Brit. J. educ. Psychol., 1958,28, 141-148.
- SIMPSON, R. H. Stability in meanings for quantitative terms: A com- parison over 20 years. Quart. J. Speech, 1963, 49, 146-151.
- STONE, D. R, & JOHNSON, R. T. A study of words indicating fre- quency. J. educ. PsychoL, 1959, 50, 224-227.
- This work was supported by the Advanced Research Project Agency under Contract S0-97 with the System Development Corporation. Psychon. Sci., 1967, Vol. 9 (10)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
“How Probable is Probable? A Numerical Translation of Verbal Probability Expressions.”
Beyth‐Marom, R. (1982) · Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1002/for.3980010305 · Cited by 527 · see citing works
Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty
Bhatt, U., Antorán, J., Zhang, Y., Liao, Q. V., Sattigeri, P., Fogliato, R., Melançon, G., Krishnan, R., Stanley, J., Tickoo, O., et al. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1145/3461702.3462571 · Cited by 225 · see citing works
Cultural differences in probabilistic thinking
Wright, G. N., Phillips, L. D., Whalley, P. C., Choo, G. T., Ng, K.-O., Tan, I., & Wisudha, A. (1978) · Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology · doi:10.1177/002202217893002 · Cited by 168 · see citing works
Seeing What You Want to See: How Imprecise Uncertainty Ranges Enhance Motivated Reasoning
Dieckmann, N. F., Gregory, R., Peters, E., & Hartman, R. (2017) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.12639 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Interpersonal comparison of subjective probabilities: Toward translating linguistic probabilities
Dhami, M. K., & Wallsten, T. S. (2005) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03193213 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lichtenstein, S., & Newman, J. R.
- Affiliations
- Oregon Research Institute (US)
- Venue
- Psychonomic Science
- Published
- 1967-10
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 563-564
- ISSN
- 0033-3131 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2081174908
- Cited by
- 313
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Psychonomic Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
- Keywords
- probability estimation, verbal phrases, probability judgment, empirical scaling
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
