A commonly suggested solution to reduce misinterpretations
of verbal probability expressions in risk communications is to
use a verbal-numerical (mixed format) approach, but it is not
known whether this increases understanding over and above a
purely numerical format. Using the ‘which outcome’
methodology (Teigen & Filkuková, 2013), we examined the
effect of using verbal, numerical and mixed communication
formats, as well as investigating whether marking outcomes as
salient would alter the outcomes people perceived as ‘unlikely’
or having a 20% chance of occurring. We observed no effect
of saliency, but replicated previous findings, with general
preference for values at the high end of a distribution (including
maximum/above maximum values) present in both verbal and
mixed communication formats. This demonstrates the
relevance of these findings for real-world consequential risk
communication. Whilst the estimates differed between the
mixed and numerical formats, we fo
