Research by Fox et al. (1998), in plain language
What’s this paper about?
This paper looks at six factors that affect the way messages come across to us as listeners in situations of uncertainty.
Why did they write this paper?
We often have to make decisions under uncertainty. Sometimes, we have the help of statistics on the chances of something happening in the future, but more often we have to go with our gut instinct. We can also make a judgement based on what someone’s telling us. How we do this is a bit of a mystery.
Some studies have looked at how we put number chances (e.g. 70% chance) into words that describe chance (e.g. ‘fairly likely’), and how we, as the listener, then convert these words into numbers. Research shows we have many different ways of putting numbers into chance words, and that how chance words are converted into numbers can be different from person to person. When things are uncertain, we tend to make mistakes in getting the right idea about chance based on what someone’s telling us. We can also get different ideas from the same message in different situations. It seems that when we’re doing the telling, we like to use chance words, but when we’re being told something, we like to hear numbers.
In order to “get” someone’s message the way they meant it, we need to have the same idea as them about how the message should come across. But, how we judge what someone tells us depends a lot on the situation. For example, one study found that when people heard there was a ‘probable’ chance of snow in winter, a higher number came to mind than when they heard the same forecast in autumn. Other studies have found that we tend to think of higher numbers when hearing about the chances of something good, and lower numbers when hearing about the chances of something bad. These findings show that how a message comes across not only depends on the specific words used, but also on how we view the specific event in question.
What did they discuss in this paper?
The researchers explain how messages in situations of uncertainty come across to us, as the listener, based on six factors that play into how we view the situation at hand. These six factors are grouped under how we view the world, the speaker, and the situation in which the message is given.
How we view the world
1. What we believe about the world and how we feel about the specific event
How we judge a message depends on what we already know and expect about the specific event. Like in the previous example, we already know that snow is more likely in winter than in autumn. That might explain why the same message about the chance of snow came across differently in two different situations. Our judgement also depends on how willing we are to change what we believe about the specific event. This comes down to a few things. We’re usually less willing to change what we believe if it’s based on our own prior experience, or if we have strong emotional ties to what we believe. Another thing is how we personally view the event. For example, we might ignore messages about risk of a dangerous event because we think something that bad and serious won’t happen to us. For a lot of dangerous events, research shows that messages about risk tend to be off the mark in terms of knowing how concerned listeners are and what specific things they’re concerned about.
2. What we know about where the information came from
How we judge a message depends on whether or not we trust the source of information. We think about things like where the speaker got the information from, why they’re telling us the message, and what’s in it for them. For example, we’re more likely to take on board a message coming from a government source than from a random person. On the other hand, we might be more sceptical of a message saying a nuclear power plant is safe if it comes from the manager of the power plant, because they have a vested interest in it being safe.
How we view the speaker
3. How much we value the speaker’s opinion on the topic
How we judge a message depends on whether we trust and value the speaker’s opinion on the topic. We might look at things like whether they have a lot of experience or knowledge on the topic, whether they’re a trustworthy person, their status, and even how likeable or attractive they are. Studies show that if we know less about a topic, we tend to look at more surface level things about the speaker, like whether they’re likeable and attractive. But, if we know more about a topic, we tend to look more critically to see if the speaker is truly an expert in the field and is trustworthy. Another thing is how we feel the speaker usually judges and frames things. For example, if we know someone tends to be overly optimistic, we might tone down their message in our mind when we make our own judgement.
4. How we view the speaker’s reasons for giving the message in the situation
How we judge a message depends on why we think the speaker is telling us the message in the specific situation. If we think the speaker has a vested interest in the situation at hand, we might be sceptical about what they want us to believe. For example, we might not be shocked by dramatic news headlines because we know that they’re deliberately written in a way to grab our attention.
How we view the situation in which the message is given
5. How we piece together different messages we get from the situation
How we judge a message depends on what we sense from how the message is given as a whole, not just the message itself. Things like tone of voice, body language, and facial expression can all give us a sense about the gravity of the message. These things can’t be seen on paper, so it also makes a difference whether the message is spoken or written.
When the speaker says they’re unsure about their own message, we can have mixed feelings. Some studies show that when a speaker says they’re unsure and gives more than one prediction, we view them as more honest but less capable of making predictions. Other studies show that when a speaker says they’re unsure and gives one single prediction, we don’t trust the prediction.
Other things that give us a sense about the message include the specific wordings used to describe chance. Framing something in first-person (e.g. ‘I’m fairly sure’) versus framing something in third-person (e.g. ‘there’s a good chance’) makes a difference to how a message comes across. Research shows that we tend to think a speaker is more willing to take responsibility for their judgement if they frame things in first-person compared to third-person. For example, one study looked at how people felt about one economist saying ‘I’m 70% sure’ versus a second economist saying ‘there’s a 70% chance’. When the prediction was correct, people felt that the one who said ‘I’m 70% sure’ should get a promotion instead of the second one who said ‘there’s a 70% chance’. But, if the prediction was incorrect, people felt that the first economist should be fired.
6. How the message fits within the overall circumstances we share with the speaker
How we judge a message depends on the overall circumstances and common ground we share with the speaker. For example, we would have certain ideas about how someone thinks about and talks about things if we have the same cultural background as them, or if we share similar interests. Whether a message is given to us specifically or whether we’re overhearing a message given to another person also makes a big difference to our judgement, because of knowing or not knowing the context.
From all these factors, the researchers show that it’s important to look at the bigger picture when thinking about how messages under uncertainty come across to people. These considerations might be especially relevant for government bodies broadcasting information about risky events, or clinicians delivering bad news about health.
Where can I learn more?
This blog post is based on the following paper:
Fox, C. R., & Irwin, J. R. (1998). The Role of Context in the Communication of Uncertain Beliefs. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20(1), 57-70. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp2001_6
You can read the original research paper here:
Comments