Lessons Learned: Recommendations for Communicating Conflicting Evidence for Risk Characterization

Embodied uncertainty: living with complexity and natural hazards

“…The advice communicated may be subject to many levels Journal of Risk Research 5 of uncertainty, including epistemic and aleatory uncertainty (van Asselt 2000;Patt and Dessai 2005). Much of the research focuses on the most effective methods for science communications, examining questions like: whether revealing the uncertainty associated with a risk assessment will strengthen or decrease trust and credibility (Johnson and Slovic 1995;Smithson 1999;Miles and Frewer 2003;Wiedemann, Börner, and Schütz 2008); whether the inclusion of uncertainty will result in misuse of the information, and a consequent attenuation or amplification of a risk to meet pre-existing attitudes, beliefs and to justify a political agenda (Kuhn 2000); and how the format of probabilities (which encompass the uncertainty) influence decision-making behaviour and interact with existing beliefs related to career, knowledge, experience and values . Recent research has also explored the political uses of uncertainty, as it relates to, for example, climate change in Brazil, and found that uncertainty is socially and politically distributed in specific ways (Taddei 2012).…”

Uncertainty and decision making: Volcanic crisis scenarios

“…Moss and Schneider [71] proposed seven recommendations for the IPCC regarding the handling and communication of uncertainties, which include "Document key causes of uncertainty" and "determine the appropriate level of precision of your conclusions after considering the nature of the uncertainties and the state of science". Wiedemann et al [110] advise that experts should help lay people make informed judgements by communicating the full range of uncertainties, and stating clearly what is known. However, they question whether advice communicated in this manner actually helps nonexperts reach the right conclusions, given differences in how information is processed by the respective groups.…”

“…As stated by Siegrist et al [95, p. 146], "One way people cope with […] lack of knowledge is to rely on social trust to reduce the complexity they are faced with". For the science providers, it is reassuring then to know that some researchers have shown that the communication of uncertainty can enhance the credibility and trustworthiness of the information provider (see reviews in [43,42,99,68,110]), making the provider seem more 'honest' [41], which should strengthen the relationships between key decision makers and scientists. Peterson and Tilling [84, p. 348] stated in their review of responses to volcanic eruptions that "people may have unrealistic expectations of scientists' forecasting ability, and if actual events do not coincide with cautiously expressed expectations of scientists, or if scientists decline to provide specific forecasts, people may question the ability, credibility, and motives of the scientists".…”

Decision-Making: Preventing Miscommunication and Creating Shared Meaning Between Stakeholders

“…Regarding the first, reviews by Doyle et al (2014a, b), identified that there is much discourse as to whether revealing the uncertainties associated with a risk assessment will strengthen or decrease trust in a risk assessor and their message, and how it impacts decision-making behaviour (Miles and Frewer 2003;Wiedemann et al 2008). On the one hand, the communication of uncertainty has been suggested to enhance credibility and trustworthiness.…”

“…On the one hand, the communication of uncertainty has been suggested to enhance credibility and trustworthiness. On the other, however, studies have suggested that it can decrease people's trust and the credibility of the provider, as it can allow people to justify inaction or their own agenda, or to perceive the risk as being higher or lower than it is depending on their personal attitudes (Johnson andSlovic 1995, 1998;Smithson 1999;Miles and Frewer 2003;Johnson 2003;Wiedemann et al 2008;Doyle et al 2014b). The role of ethics in whether or not to communicate uncertainty has also become a focus of recent discussion across disciplines, including whether communicating this uncertainty actually enhances or diminishes the autonomy of the receiver of the message, and whether it produces an overall benefit or can actually cause harm (Han 2013;Austin et al 2015;Grasso and Markowitz 2015).…”