Processing Quantified Noun Phrases with Numbers Versus Verbal Quantifiers

References

• Association of Forensic Science Providers. (2009). Standards for the formulation of evaluative forensic science expert opinion. Science and Justice, 49, 161–164.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barwise, J., & Cooper, R. (1981). Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 159–219.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bass, B. M., Cascio, W. F., & O’Connor, E. J. (1974). Magnitude estimations of frequency and amount. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 313–320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berry, D. C., & Hochhauser, M. (2006). Verbal labels can triple perceived risk in clinical trials, Drug Information Journal, 40, 249–257.
   Google Scholar
• Borge, M. A., & Sawyer, B. K. (1974). Common verbal quantifiers: Usage and interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102, 335–338.
   Google Scholar
• Chochon, F., Cohen, L., van de Moortele, P.F., & Dehaene, S. (1999). Differential contributions of left and right inferior parietal lobules to number processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 617–630.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.
   Google Scholar
• Juanchich, M., Teigen, K. H., & Villejoubert, G. (2010). Is guilt “likely” or “not certain”? Contrast with previous probability determines choice of verbal terms. Acta Psychologica, 135, 267–277.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McMillan, C. T., Clark, R., Moore, P., DeVita, M., & Grossman, M. (2005). Neural basis for generalized quantifier comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 43, 1729–1737.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moxey, L. M., & Sanford, A. J. (1987). Quantifiers and focus. Journal of Semantics, 5, 189–206.
   Google Scholar
• Moxey, L. M., & Sanford, A. J. (1993). Communicating quantities: A psychological perspective. Hove, UK: Erlbaum
   Google Scholar
• Mullen, C, Spence, D. Moxey, L. M., & Jamieson, A (2014). The use of the verbal scale by forensic scientists. Science and Justice, 54, 154–158.
   Google Scholar
• Myers, J.L., O’Brien, E. J., Albrecht, J. E., & Mason, R. A. (1994). Maintaining global coherence during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 876–886.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanford, A. J. (2002). Context, attention and depth of processing during interpretation. Mind and Language, 17, 188–206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanford, A. J., Moxey, L. M., & Paterson, K. B. (1994). Psychological studies of quantifiers: A review of recent research. Journal of Semantics, 10, 153–170.
   Google Scholar
• Sanford, A. J., & Sturt, (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 382–386.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schank, R., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Teigen, K. H., & Brun, W. (1995). Yes, but it is uncertain: Direction and communicative intention of verbal probabilistic terms. Acta Psychologica, 88, 233–258.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teigen, K. H., Halberg, A., & Fostervold, K. I. (2007). More than, less than, or between: How upper and lower bounds determine subjective interval estimates. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20, 179–201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallsten, T.S., Budescu, D.V., Zwick, R., & Kemp, S. M. (1993). Preferences and reasons for communicating probabilistic information in verbal or numerical terms. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31, 135–138.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, E. U., & Hilton, D. J. (1990). Contextual effects in the interpretations of probability words: Perceived base rate and severity of events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 781–789.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Windschitl, P. D., & Weber, E. U. (1999). The interpretation of “likely” depends on the context, but 70% is 70%—right? The influence of associative processes on perceived certainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 25, 1514–1533.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar