Affiliation:
1. Department of Communication and Cognition, Tilburg School of Humanities and Digital Sciences Tilburg University Tilburg The Netherlands
2. Methodology & Statistics, Institute of Psychology, Social and Behavioural Sciences Leiden University Leiden The Netherlands
Abstract
AbstractPeople typically use verbal probability phrases when discussing risks (“It is likely that this treatment will work”), both in written and spoken communication. When speakers are uncertain about risks, they can nonverbally signal this uncertainty by using prosodic cues, such as a rising, question‐like intonation or a filled pause (“uh”). We experimentally studied the effects of these two prosodic cues on the listener's perceived speaker certainty and numerical interpretation of spoken verbal probability phrases. Participants (N = 115) listened to various verbal probability phrases that were uttered with a rising or falling global intonation and with or without a filled pause before the probability phrase. For each phrase, they gave a point estimate of their numerical interpretation in percentages and indicated how certain they thought the speaker was about the correctness of the probability phrase. Speakers were perceived as least certain when the verbal probability phrases were spoken with both prosodic uncertainty cues. Interpretation of verbal probability phrases varied widely across participants, especially when rising intonation was produced by the speaker. Overall, high probability phrases (e.g., “very likely”) were estimated as lower (and low probability phrases, such as “unlikely,” as higher) when they were uttered with a rising intonation. The effects of filled pauses were less pronounced, as were the uncertainty effects for medium probability phrases (e.g., “probable”). These results stress the importance of nonverbal communication when verbally communicating risks and probabilities to people, for example, in the context of doctor–patient communication.
Reference50 articles.
1. Boersma P.(2011).Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program].Praat.https://www.praat.org
2. Epistemic intonation and epistemic gesture are mutually co-expressive: Empirical results from two intonation-gesture matching tasks
3. Borràs‐Comes J. Roseano P. Vanrell M. del Mar Chen A. &Prieto P.(2011).Perceiving uncertainty: Facial gestures intonation and lexical choice. InC.Kirchhof Z.Maliszm &P.Wagner(Eds.) Proceedings of the 2nd conference on gesture and speech in interaction [GESPIN 2011] Bielefeld Germany.HAL Open Science.
4. Current Best Practice for Presenting Probabilities in Patient Decision Aids: Fundamental Principles