IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v121y2013i2p415-425.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lost in translation? Interpretations of the probability phrases used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in China and the UK

Author

Listed:
  • Adam Harris
  • Adam Corner
  • Juemin Xu
  • Xiufang Du

Abstract

Tackling climate change is a global challenge and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the organisation charged with communicating the risks, dangers and mechanisms underlying climate change to both policy makers and the general public. The IPCC has traditionally used words (e.g., ‘likely’) in place of numbers (‘70 % chance’) to communicate risk and uncertainty information. The IPCC assessment reports have been published in six languages, but the consistency of the interpretation of these words cross-culturally has yet to be investigated. In two studies, we find considerable variation in the interpretation of the IPCC’s probability expressions between the Chinese and British public. Whilst British interpretations differ somewhat from the IPCC’s prescriptions, Chinese interpretations differ to a much greater degree and show more variation. These results add weight to continuing calls for the IPCC to make greater use of numbers in its forecasts. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Adam Harris & Adam Corner & Juemin Xu & Xiufang Du, 2013. "Lost in translation? Interpretations of the probability phrases used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in China and the UK," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 121(2), pages 415-425, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:121:y:2013:i:2:p:415-425
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-013-0975-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10584-013-0975-1
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-013-0975-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Budescu & Han-Hui Por & Stephen Broomell, 2012. "Effective communication of uncertainty in the IPCC reports," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 113(2), pages 181-200, July.
    2. Thomas S. Wallsten & David V. Budescu & Rami Zwick, 1993. "Comparing the Calibration and Coherence of Numerical and Verbal Probability Judgments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(2), pages 176-190, February.
    3. Doupnik, Timothy S. & Richter, Martin, 2003. "Interpretation of uncertainty expressions: a cross-national study," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 15-35, January.
    4. Budescu, David V. & Wallsten, Thomas S., 1985. "Consistency in interpretation of probabilistic phrases," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 391-405, December.
    5. Brun, Wibecke & Teigen, Karl Halvor, 1988. "Verbal probabilities: Ambiguous, context-dependent, or both?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 390-404, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rosalind Pidcock & Kate Heath & Lydia Messling & Susie Wang & Anna Pirani & Sarah Connors & Adam Corner & Christopher Shaw & Melissa Gomis, 2021. "Evaluating effective public engagement: local stories from a global network of IPCC scientists," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 168(3), pages 1-22, October.
    2. Adam J. L. Harris & Han-Hui Por & Stephen B. Broomell, 2017. "Anchoring climate change communications," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 140(3), pages 387-398, February.
    3. A. Kause & W. Bruine de Bruin & J. Persson & H. Thorén & L. Olsson & A. Wallin & S. Dessai & N. Vareman, 2022. "Confidence levels and likelihood terms in IPCC reports: a survey of experts from different scientific disciplines," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 173(1), pages 1-18, July.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:363-393 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Richard S. J. Tol, 2016. "The Impacts Of Climate Change According To The Ipcc," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 7(01), pages 1-20, February.
    6. Marie Juanchich & Theodore G. Shepherd & Miroslav Sirota, 2020. "Negations in uncertainty lexicon affect attention, decision-making and trust," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(3), pages 1677-1698, October.
    7. David R. Mandel & Daniel Irwin, 2021. "Facilitating sender-receiver agreement in communicated probabilities: Is it best to use words, numbers or both?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(2), pages 363-393, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:363-393 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:wrk:wrkemf:22 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Zimmer, Anja & Schade, Christian & Gründl, Helmut, 2009. "Is default risk acceptable when purchasing insurance? Experimental evidence for different probability representations, reasons for default, and framings," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 11-23, February.
    4. David R. Mandel & Daniel Irwin, 2021. "Facilitating sender-receiver agreement in communicated probabilities: Is it best to use words, numbers or both?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(2), pages 363-393, March.
    5. Ece Tuncel & William P. Bottom, 2019. "The Differential Effects of Fear and Tranquility on Risk Taking When Probabilistic Information is Communicated in Verbal Terms," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 671-693, August.
    6. M Tavana & M A Sodenkamp, 2010. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis model for advanced technology assessment at Kennedy Space Center," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(10), pages 1459-1470, October.
    7. Prather-Kinsey, Jenice & Boyar, Scott & Hood, Anthony C., 2018. "Implications for IFRS principles-based and US GAAP rules-based applications: Are accountants’ decisions affected by work location and core self-evaluations?," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 61-69.
    8. Haran, Uriel & Mazar, Asaf & Hurwitz, Mordechai & Moran, Simone, 2022. "Confidently at your service: Advisors alter their stated confidence to be helpful," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    9. Adam J. L. Harris & Han-Hui Por & Stephen B. Broomell, 2017. "Anchoring climate change communications," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 140(3), pages 387-398, February.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:6:p:939-958 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Teigen, Karl Halvor & Brun, Wibecke, 1999. "The Directionality of Verbal Probability Expressions: Effects on Decisions, Predictions, and Probabilistic Reasoning, , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 155-190, November.
    12. Lootsma, Freerk A., 1997. "Multicriteria decision analysis in a decision tree," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 442-451, September.
    13. Piercey, M. David, 2009. "Motivated reasoning and verbal vs. numerical probability assessment: Evidence from an accounting context," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 330-341, March.
    14. Madjid Tavana, 2003. "CROSS: A Multicriteria Group-Decision-Making Model for Evaluating and Prioritizing Advanced-Technology Projects at NASA," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 33(3), pages 40-56, June.
    15. Doupnik, Timothy S. & Richter, Martin, 2003. "Interpretation of uncertainty expressions: a cross-national study," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 15-35, January.
    16. Christopher W. Karvetski & David R. Mandel, 2020. "Coherence of probability judgments from uncertain evidence: Does ACH help?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(6), pages 939-958, November.
    17. Huizingh, Eelko K. R. E. & Vrolijk, Hans C. J., 1997. "A Comparison of Verbal and Numerical Judgments in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 237-247, June.
    18. Michael Lindell & Shih-Kai Huang & Hung-Lung Wei & Charles Samuelson, 2016. "Perceptions and expected immediate reactions to tornado warning polygons," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 80(1), pages 683-707, January.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:5:p:445-465 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Marie Juanchich & Theodore G. Shepherd & Miroslav Sirota, 2020. "Negations in uncertainty lexicon affect attention, decision-making and trust," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(3), pages 1677-1698, October.
    21. Parackal, Mathew, 2010. "Correcting the illogicality in probability data of mutually exclusive behaviours," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 105-111.
    22. David Budescu & Han-Hui Por & Stephen Broomell, 2012. "Effective communication of uncertainty in the IPCC reports," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 113(2), pages 181-200, July.
    23. Marie Juanchich & Amélie Gourdon-Kanhukamwe & Miroslav Sirota, 2017. "“I am uncertain†vs “It is uncertain†. How linguistic markers of the uncertainty source affect uncertainty communication," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(5), pages 445-465, September.
    24. Laaksonen, Jenni, 2022. "Translation, hegemony and accounting: A critical research framework with an illustration from the IFRS context," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:121:y:2013:i:2:p:415-425. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.