Language modality influences risk perception: Innovations read well but sound even better.
affect heuristic
communication
innovation
modality
risk perception
Journal
Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis
ISSN: 1539-6924
Titre abrégé: Risk Anal
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8109978
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2023
03 2023
Historique:
pubmed:
24
3
2022
medline:
22
3
2023
entrez:
23
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Psychological theories implicitly assume that the modality in which information is conveyed-spoken or written-leaves judgment and choice unaltered. Modality is rarely considered in textbooks on judgment and decision making, and the selection of modality in research is often based on convenience. We challenge this theoretical assumption. Three experiments (N = 984) show that the modality in which novel technologies are described systematically influences their perceived risk and benefit. Participants either read or heard advantages and disadvantages of novel technologies and then assessed their risk and benefit. In Study 1, spoken descriptions prompted more positive evaluations toward the technologies in terms of overall risks and benefits than written descriptions. Studies 2 and 3 replicated this modality effect and demonstrated that affect partially explains it, as spoken descriptions induced more positive feelings toward the new technologies than written descriptions. Study 3 (preregistered) showed that the influence of modality is unique to novel technologies and does not extend to familiar ones. These findings contribute theoretically to the understanding of the relationship between language and thought, and carry implications for survey research and the use of voice assistant technology.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
558-570Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Risk Analysis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Risk Analysis.
Références
Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 27-58. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.27
Alhakami, A. S., & Slovic, P. (1994). A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 1085-1096. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00080.x
Arana, S., Marquand, A., Hultén, A., Hagoort, P., & Schoffelen, J.-M. (2020). Sensory modality-independent activation of the brain network for language. The Journal of Neuroscience, 40(14), 2914-2924. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.2271-19.2020
AudacityTeam. (2020). Audacity team (p. Last viewed September 20, 2014). https://audacityteam.org
Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2, 159-170. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00436035
Breen, M., & Clifton, C. (2011). Stress matters: Effects of anticipated lexical stress on silent reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 64(2), 153-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.11.001
Chaiken, S., Duckworth, K. L., & Darke, P. (1999). When parsimony fails. Psychological Inquiry, 10(2), 118-123. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pl100204
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax (Pp. 251). MIT Press.
Dahan, D., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Chambersc, C. G. (2002). Accent and reference resolution in spoken-language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(2), 292-314. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00001-3
Deniz, F., Nunez-Elizalde, A. O., Huth, A. G., & Gallant, J. L. (2019). The representation of semantic information across human cerebral cortex during listening versus reading is invariant to stimulus modality. The Journal of Neuroscience : The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 39(39), 7722-7736. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0675-19.2019
Department of Health and Social Care. (2019). NHS health information available through Amazon's Alexa. Department of Health and Social Care. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nhs-health-information-available-through-amazon-s-alexa
Dillman, D. A., & Christian, L. M. (2005). Survey mode as a source of instability in responses across surveys. Field Methods, 17(1), 30-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x04269550
Dillman, D. A., Phelps, G., Tortora, R., Swift, K., Kohrell, J., Berck, J., & Messer, B. L. (2009). Response rate and measurement differences in mixed-mode surveys using mail, telephone, interactive voice response (IVR) and the Internet. Social Science Research, 38(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.03.007
Efendić Emir, Chandrashekar Subramanya Prasad, Lee Cheong Shing, Yeung Lok Yan, Kim Min Ji, Lee Ching Yee, Feldman Gilad (2021). Risky Therefore Not Beneficial: Replication and Extension of Finucane et al.’s (2000) Affect Heuristic Experiment. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 194855062110567. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211056761
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
Fazio, R. H. (2007). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations of varying strength. Social Cognition, 25(5), 603-637. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2007.25.5.603
Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1:1::AID-BDM3333.0.CO;2-S
Fischhoff, B., Brewer, N. T., & Downs, J. (2011). Communicating risks and benefits. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug AdministrationFood and Drug Administration, 13(9), 289. https://www.fda.gov/files/aboutfda/published/Communicating-Risk-and-Benefits-An-Evidence-Based-User/27s-Guide-/28Printer-Friendly/29.pdf
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 9(2), 127-152. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143739
Geipel, J., Hadjichristidis, C., & Klesse, A. K. (2018). Barriers to sustainable consumption attenuated by foreign language use. Nature Sustainability, 1(1), 31-33. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-017-0005-9
Glenberg, A. M. (1990). Common processes underlie enhanced recency effects for auditory and changing-state stimuli. Memory & Cognition, 18(6), 638-650. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197106
Glenberg, A. M., & Fernandez, A. (1988). Evidence for auditory temporal distinctiveness: Modality effects in order and frequency judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(4), 728-739. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.14.4.728
Greene, R. L. (2014). Human memory. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315807195
Hadjichristidis, C., Geipel, J., & Savadori, L. (2015). The effect of foreign language in judgments of risk and benefit: The role of affect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 21(2), 117-129. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000044
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Methodology in the social sciences : Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hochstim, J. R. (1967). A critical comparison of three strategies of collecting data from households. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 62(319), 976-989. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1967.10500909
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2012). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases (pp. 49-81). https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511808098.004
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341-350. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341
Keller, C., Siegrist, M., & Gutscher, H. (2006). The role of the affect and availability heuristics in risk communication. Risk Analysis, 26(3), 631-639. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00773.x
King, J., & Slovic, P. (2014). The affect heuristic in early judgments of product innovations. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 13(6), 411-428. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1491
Kopp, K., & D'Mello, S. (2016). The impact of modality on mind wandering during comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(1), 29-40. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3163
Labroo, A. A., & Pocheptsova, A. (2016). Metacognition and consumer judgment: Fluency is pleasant but disfluency ignites interest. Current Opinion in Psychology, 10, 154-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.01.008
Lev-Ari, S., & Keysar, B. (2010). Why don't we believe non-native speakers? The influence of accent on credibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 1093-1096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.025
Liberman, A. M., & Whalen, D. H. (2000). On the relation of speech to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(5), 187-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01471-6
Loewenstein, G. F., Hsee, C. K., Weber, E. U., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 267-286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267
Metcalfe, J., Glavanov, D., & Murdock, M. (1981). Spatial and temporal processing in the auditory and visual modalities. Memory & Cognition, 9(4), 351-359. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197559
Midden, C. J. H., & Huijts, N. M. A. (2009). The role of trust in the affective evaluation of novel risks: The case of CO2 storage. Risk Analysis, 29(5), 743-751. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01201.x
Murdock, B. B., & Walker, K. D. (1969). Modality effects in free recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8(5), 665-676. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(69)80120-9
Penney, C. G. (1975). Modality effects in short-term verbal memory. Psychological Bulletin, 82(1), 68-84. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076166
Port, R. F., & Leary, A. P. (2005). Against formal phonology. Language, 81(4), 927-964. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0195
Rayner, K., & Clifton, C. (2009). Language processing in reading and speech perception is fast and incremental: Implications for event-related potential research. Biological Psychology, 80(1), 4-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2008.05.002
Savadori, L., Savio, S., Nicotra, E., Rumiati, R., Finucane, M., & Slovic, P. (2004). Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Analysis, 24(5), 1289-1299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00526.x
Schober, M. F., Conrad, F. G., Antoun, C., Ehlen, P., Fail, S., Hupp, A. L., Johnston, M., Vickers, L., Yan, H. Y., & Zhang, C. (2015). Precision and disclosure in text and voice interviews on smartphones. PLoS One, 10(6). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128337
Schwarz, N. (2007). Attitude construction: Evaluation in context. Social Cognition, 25(5), 638-656. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2007.25.5.638
Siegrist, M., & Sütterlin, B. (2014). Human and nature-caused hazards: The affect heuristic causes biased decisions. Risk Analysis, 34(8), 1482-1494. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12179
Skagerlund, K., Forsblad, M., Slovic, P., & Västfjäll, D. (2020). The affect heuristic and risk perception - stability across elicitation methods and individual cognitive abilities. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 970. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00970
Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24(2), 311-322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00433.x
Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1333-1352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006
Snedeker, J., & Trueswell, J. (2003). Using prosody to avoid ambiguity: Effects of speaker awareness and referential context. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(1), 103-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00519-3
Sousa, T. L. V., Carriere, J. S. A., & Smilek, D. (2013). The way we encounter reading material influences how frequently we mind wander. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00892
Timmers, P. (2020). There will be no global 6G unless we resolve sovereignty concerns in 5G governance. Nature Electronics, 3(1), 10-12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41928-020-0366-3
Tourangeau, R., Steiger, D. M., & Wilson, D. (2002). Self-administered questions by telephone: Evaluating interactive voice response. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66(2), 265-278. https://doi.org/10.1086/340029
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. The Journal of Business.
Unkelbach, C., Alves, H., & Koch, A. (2020). Negativity bias, positivity bias, and valence asymmetries: Explaining the differential processing of positive and negative information. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 62, 115-187. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2020.04.005
Unnava, H. R., Burnkrant, R. E., & Erevelles, S. (1994). Effects of presentation order and communication modality on recall and attitude. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 481. https://doi.org/10.1086/209412
Van Giesen, R. I., Fischer, A. R. H., Van Dijk, H., & Van Trijp, H. C. M. (2015). Affect and cognition in attitude formation toward familiar and unfamiliar attitude objects. PLoS One, 10(10). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141790
von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (2007). Theory of games and economic behavior. In Theory of games and economic behavior. 60th anniversary commemorative edition. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Whittlesea, B. W. A., Jacoby, L. L., & Girard, K. (1990). Illusions of immediate memory: Evidence of an attributional basis for feelings of familiarity and perceptual quality. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(6), 716-732. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90045-2
Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Fazendeiro, T. A., & Reber, R. (2003). The hedonic marking of processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgement. In J. Musch & K. C. Klauer (Eds.), The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion. (pp. 189-217). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Xie, X. F., Wang, M., Zhang, R. G., Li, J., & Yu, Q. Y. (2011). The role of emotions in risk communication. Risk Analysis, 31(3), 450-465. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01530.x