Search

Communicating uncertainties in scientific evidence is important to accurately reflect scientific knowledge , increase public understanding of uncertainty, and to signal transparency and honesty in reporting. While techniques have been developed to facilitate the communication of uncertainty, many have not been empirically tested, compared for communicating different types of uncertainty, or their effects on different cognitive, trust, and behavioral outcomes have not been evaluated. The present study examined how a point estimate, imprecise estimate, conflicting estimates, or a statement about the lack of evidence about treatment effects, influenced participant's responses to communications about medical evidence. For each type of uncertainty, we adapted three display formats to communicate the information: tables, bar graphs, and icon arrays. We compared participant's best estimates of treatment effects, as well as effects on recall, subjective evaluations (understandability and usefuleness), certainty perceptions, perceptions of trustworthiness of the information, and behavioral intentions. We did not find any detrimental effects from communicating imprecision or conflicting estimates relative to a point estimate across any outcome. Furthermore, there were more favorable responses to communicating imprecision or conflicting estimates relative to lack of evidence, where participants estimated the treatment would improve outcomes by 30-50% relative to a placebo. There were no differences across display formats, suggesting that, if well-designed, it may not matter which format is used. Future research on specific display formats or uncertainty types and with larger sample sizes would be needed to detect small effects. Implications for the communication of uncertainty are discussed., (© 2021 The Authors. Risk Analysis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Risk Analysis.)

Decisions in the environmental and in particular the climate domain are burdened with uncertainty. Here, we focus on uncertainties faced by individuals when making decisions about environmental behavior, and we use the statistical sampling framework to develop a classification of different sources of uncertainty they encounter. We then map these sources to different public policy strategies aiming to help individuals cope with uncertainty when making environmental decisions., (Copyright © 2015 Cognitive Science Society, Inc.)

Communicating uncertainties in scientific evidence is important to accurately reflect scientific knowledge , increase public understanding of uncertainty, and to signal transparency and honesty in reporting. While techniques have been developed to facilitate the communication of uncertainty, many have not been empirically tested, compared for communicating different types of uncertainty, or their effects on different cognitive, trust, and behavioral outcomes have not been evaluated. The present study examined how a point estimate, imprecise estimate, conflicting estimates, or a statement about the lack of evidence about treatment effects, influenced participant's responses to communications about medical evidence. For each type of uncertainty, we adapted three display formats to communicate the information: tables, bar graphs, and icon arrays. We compared participant's best estimates of treatment effects, as well as effects on recall, subjective evaluations (understandability and usefuleness), certainty perceptions, perceptions of trustworthiness of the information, and behavioral intentions. We did not find any detrimental effects from communicating imprecision or conflicting estimates relative to a point estimate across any outcome. Furthermore, there were more favorable responses to communicating imprecision or conflicting estimates relative to lack of evidence, where participants estimated the treatment would improve outcomes by 30–50% relative to a placebo. There were no differences across display formats, suggesting that, if well‐designed, it may not matter which format is used. Future research on specific display formats or uncertainty types and with larger sample sizes would be needed to detect small effects. Implications for the communication of uncertainty are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Stakeholders from public, private, and third sectors need to adapt to a changing climate. Communications about climate may be challenging, especially for audiences with limited climate expertise. Here, we study how such audience members perceive visualizations about projected future rainfall. In semi-structured interviews, we presented 24 participants from climate-conscious organizations across the UK with three prototypical visualizations about projected future rainfall, adopted from the probabilistic United Kingdom Climate Projections: (1) Maps displaying a central estimate and confidence intervals, (2) a line graph and boxplots displaying change over time and associated confidence intervals, and (3) a probability density function for distributions of rainfall change. We analyzed participants' responses using "Thematic Analysis". In our analysis, we identified features that facilitated understanding—such as colors, simple captions, and comparisons between different emission scenarios—and barriers that hindered understanding, such as unfamiliar acronyms and terminology, confusing usage of probabilistic estimates, and expressions of relative change in percentages. We integrate these findings with the interdisciplinary risk communication literature and suggest content-related and editorial strategies for effectively designing visualizations about uncertain climate projections for audiences with limited climate expertise. These strategies will help organizations such as National Met Services to effectively communicate about a changing climate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]