Tactful, or doubtful? Expectations of politeness explain the severity bias in the interpretation of probability phrases

When a statement about the occurrence of a medical condition is qualified by an expression of probability, such as the word possible, listeners interpret the probability of the condition as being higher the more severe the condition. This severity bias can have serious consequences for the well-being of patients. We argue that the bias is due to a misconception of the pragmatic function served by the expression of probability. The more severe the condition, the greater the chance that the listener construes the expression as a politeness marker rather than as an uncertainty marker. When this misconception does not occur, neither should the severity bias. An analysis of interpretations of probability expressions using a membership-function approach validates this account. We discuss the consequences of this bias for the communication of risk within and outside the medical domain

Applying Causal Reasoning to Analyze Value Systems

International audienceCollaborative networked organizations are composed of heterogeneous and autonomous entities. Thus it is natural that each member has its own set of values and preferences, as a result, conflicts among partners might emerge due to some values misalignment. Therefore, tools to support the analysis of Value Systems in a collaborative context are relevant to improve the network management. Since a Value System reflects the set of values and preferences of an actor, which are cognitive issues, a cognitive approach based on qualitative causal maps is suggested. Qualitative inference methods are presented in order to assess the potential for conflicts among network members and the positive impact between members' Value Systems. The software tool developed, in order to support the proposed framework and the qualitative inference methods, is briefly presented

Assessing the efficacy and standardization potential of five competing venture capital investment evaluation approaches

The research objective behind this article was to perform a critical evaluation and comparison of five representative business plan evaluation aids (BPEAs) to facilitate constructive discussion of the proposition that greater standardization of venture capital decision-making might be both desirable and possible. The five BPEAs were systematically compared using a structured, taxonomic process. The evidence of this investigation suggests a clear superiority of BPEAs that are based on the researched attributes of successful ventures and use actuarial modeling. Discussion centered on the importance of using BPEAs in a quest for greater consistency during venture capital investment decision-making