{"id":2077,"slug":"budescu-2009-2014-ipcc-verbal-mistinterpret","title":"Budescu et al. 2009/2014 — IPCC verbal terms interpreted REGRESSIVELY; numeric pairing fixes","kind":"reference","scope":"business","status":"current","audiences":["kevin","candid-team"],"topics":["verbal-label-misinterpretation"],"reference_body":"**Claim:** Budescu, Broomell & Por (2009, *Psychological Science* 20(3):299-308) found lay readers interpret IPCC verbal terms \"regressively\" (pulled toward 50%) and far less extremely than intended — \"very likely\" (IPCC: >90%) was commonly read in the ~65-75% range, with **~25% of subjects reading it below 70%**.\n\nBudescu, Por, Broomell & Smithson (2014, *Nature Climate Change* 4:508-512; 25 samples, 24 countries, 17 languages) showed that supplementing the words with numeric ranges raised guideline-consistency from **27% (verbal-only) to 40% (verbal + numeric)**.\n\n**Source:** Budescu et al. 2009 Psych Science; Budescu et al. 2014 Nature Climate Change. Multi-country replication.\n\n**Confidence:** Verified.\n\n**Why this matters for Candid:** Strongest behavioral case against word-only tier labels. The widget's \"Hard\" / \"Very Hard\" labels MUST be paired with anchors (visual position, defined band, owner-specific drivers) — words alone will be read inconsistently and often wrongly.","rationale_body":null,"metadata":null,"links":{"outgoing":[{"slug":"ipcc-likelihood-ladder","title":"IPCC likelihood ladder — the calibrated tier convention in high-stakes science communication","kind":"reference","scope":"business","link_type":"relates-to"}],"incoming":[{"slug":"research-brief-smb-widget-presenting-tiers-june-2026","title":"Research brief: SMB widget presentation layer — tiered results without overclaiming (June 2026)","kind":"reference","scope":"business","link_type":"relates-to"},{"slug":"rule-four-tiers-with-visual-scale-and-drivers","title":"Rule — 4 tiers max, plain labels, visual scale, drivers shown","kind":"rule","scope":"business","link_type":"depends-on"},{"slug":"bal-2021-systematic-review-verbal-labels","title":"Bal et al. 2021 (JGIM systematic review) — \"rare\" interpretations 7-21%, \"common\" 34-71%","kind":"reference","scope":"business","link_type":"relates-to"}]},"created_at":"2026-06-23T19:16:03.438Z","updated_at":"2026-06-23T19:16:03.438Z"}