Two-sided science: Communicating scientific uncertainty increases trust in scientists and donation intention by decreasing attribution of communicator bias

Steijaert, Mickey; Schaap, Gabi; Riet, Jonathan van ‘t

doi:10.1515/commun-2019-0123

Cited by 13 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, future studies should investigate whether recipients are also less likely to attribute communicator bias (Eagly et al, 1978) when sources communicate epistemic uncertainty. For example, Steijaert et al (2020) found that when a communicator discloses uncertainty recipients are less likely to ascribe communicator bias to the SI, leading to an increase in trust (compared to when no uncertainty is revealed). However, instead of applying single items, which has to be mentioned as a limitation of this study, it would be reasonable to develop a reliable scale to measure ascribed communicative motives.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Face Masks Might Protect You From COVID-19: The Communication of Scientific Uncertainty by Scientists Versus Politicians in the Context of Policy in the Making

Janssen

Hendriks

Jucks

2021

Journal of Language and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific knowledge is intrinsically uncertain; hence, it can only provide a tentative orientation for political decisions. One illustrative example is the discussion that has taken place on introducing mandatory mask-wearing to contain the coronavirus. In this context, this study investigates how the communication of uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of mandatory mask-wearing affects the perceived trustworthiness of communicators. Participants ( N = 398) read a fictitious but evidence-based text supporting mandatory mask-wearing. First, epistemic uncertainty was communicated by including a high (vs. low) amount of lexical hedges (LHs) to the text (e.g., “maybe”). Second, we varied whether the source of information was a scientist or a politician. Thereafter, participants rated the source's trustworthiness. Results show that the scientist was perceived as more competent and as having more integrity but not as more benevolent than the politician. The use of LHs did not impact trustworthiness ratings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Face Masks Might Protect You From COVID-19: The Communication of Scientific Uncertainty by Scientists Versus Politicians in the Context of Policy in the Making

Janssen

Hendriks

Jucks

2021

Journal of Language and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Empirical evidence suggests that messages which label claims as based on “low-quality” research are rated as less trustworthy than those which reference “high-quality” research or make no mention of quality ( 26 , 27 ). Other studies have found that disclosure of evidence limitations by scientists in news or online reports can increase ( 28 , 29 ) or have no effect on perceptions of credibility or trustworthiness ( 30 , 31 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Transparent communication of evidence does not undermine public trust in evidence

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Does clear and transparent communication of risks, benefits, and uncertainties increase or undermine public trust in scientific information that people use to guide their decision-making? We examined the impact of reframing messages written in traditional persuasive style to align instead with recent “evidence communication” principles, aiming to inform decision-making: communicating a balance of risks and benefits, disclosing uncertainties and evidence quality, and prebunking misperceptions. In two pre-registered experiments, UK participants read either a persuasive message or a balanced and informative message adhering to evidence communication recommendations about COVID-19 vaccines (Study 1) or nuclear power plants (Study 2). We find that balanced messages are either perceived as trustworthy as persuasive messages (Study 1), or more so (Study 2). However, we note a moderating role of prior beliefs such that balanced messages were consistently perceived as more trustworthy among those with negative or neutral prior beliefs about the message content. We furthermore note that participants who had read the persuasive message on nuclear power plants voiced significantly stronger support for nuclear power than those who had read the balanced message, despite rating the information as less trustworthy. There was no difference in vaccination intentions between groups reading the different vaccine messages.

show abstract

“…We believe that this is the essential first step toward acceptance that published work is not "fact", even if published by scientists with strong reputations. This kind of appreciation of the presence of uncertainty in science is a key insight for calibrating public trust in science (Steijaert et al, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teaching Uncertainty: A new framework for communicating unknowns in traditional and virtual field experiences

Wilson

Williams

Bateman

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Managing uncertainty is fundamental to geoscience practice, yet geoscience education generally does not incorporate explicit instruction on uncertainty. To the extent that students are exposed to scientific uncertainty, it is through in-person field experiences. Virtual field experiences – which rely on pictures, maps, and previously collected measurements – should therefore explicitly address uncertainty or risk losing this critical aspect of students' experience. In this paper we present a framework for teaching students to assess and communicate their uncertainty, which is grounded in best expert practices for conveying uncertainty and familiar terms-of-art in geology. The starting point of our framework is the recognition of uncertainty in both geologic data and models, the latter of which we use as an encompassing term to refer to potential geological processes and structures inferred on the basis of incomplete information. We present a concrete application of the framework to geological mapping and discuss how it could enhance student learning in both traditional in-person and virtual experiences. Our framework is extensible in that it can be applied to a variety of geologic features beyond those where uncertainty is traditionally assessed, and can also be applied to geological subdisciplines.

show abstract

Two-sided science: Communicating scientific uncertainty increases trust in scientists and donation intention by decreasing attribution of communicator bias

Cited by 13 publications

References 35 publications

Face Masks Might Protect You From COVID-19: The Communication of Scientific Uncertainty by Scientists Versus Politicians in the Context of Policy in the Making

Face Masks Might Protect You From COVID-19: The Communication of Scientific Uncertainty by Scientists Versus Politicians in the Context of Policy in the Making

Transparent communication of evidence does not undermine public trust in evidence

Teaching Uncertainty: A new framework for communicating unknowns in traditional and virtual field experiences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About