Abstract
Statistical forecasts are increasingly prevalent. How do forecasts affect people’s beliefs about corresponding future events? This research proposes that the format in which the forecast is communicated biases its interpretation. We contrast two common forecast formats: chance (e.g., the forecasted probability that a political candidate or a sports team will win) versus margin (e.g., by how many points a political candidate or a sportsteam is forecasted to win). Across five studies(total N=2,486; plus nine replications with an additional total N=2,420), we find a robust chance-margin discrepancy: chance forecasts lead to more extreme beliefs about outcome occurrence than margin forecasts. This discrepancy persists over time in interpreting real-world forecasts (e.g., the 2016 U.S. presidential election), replicates even when the forecasts are strictly statistically equivalent, and has downstream consequences for attitudes toward election candidates and sports betting decisions. Lastly, we discuss the implications for mass communications and gerrymandered redistricting.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.