IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v6y2003i1p75-85.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The views of scientific experts on how the public conceptualize uncertainty

Author

Listed:
  • Lynn Frewer
  • Steve Hunt
  • Mary Brennan
  • Sharron Kuznesof
  • Mitchell Ness
  • Chris Ritson

Abstract

Scientific experts (drawn from scientific institutions, universities, industry, and government) were interviewed about how they thought the general public might handle information about uncertainty associated with risk analysis. It was found that, for many people within the scientific community, there was a widespread belief that the general public were unable to conceptualize uncertainties associated with risk management processes. Many scientists thought that providing the public with information about uncertainty would increase distrust in science and scientific institutions, as well as cause panic and confusion regarding the extent and impact of a particular hazard. It was concluded that scientists still appear to be subscribing to the deficit model of science communication, and it is vital that effective mechanisms for communicating about risk uncertainty with the public must be developed as a matter of urgency, particularly as increased transparency in risk management processes means that scientific uncertainties associated with risk analysis become more likely to be the subject of public scrutiny and debate.

Suggested Citation

  • Lynn Frewer & Steve Hunt & Mary Brennan & Sharron Kuznesof & Mitchell Ness & Chris Ritson, 2003. "The views of scientific experts on how the public conceptualize uncertainty," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 75-85, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:6:y:2003:i:1:p:75-85
    DOI: 10.1080/1366987032000047815
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/1366987032000047815
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/1366987032000047815?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Lynn J. Frewer & Joachim Scholderer & Lone Bredahl, 2003. "Communicating about the Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods: The Mediating Role of Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1117-1133, December.
    2. Kelly Klima & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & M. Granger Morgan & Iris Grossmann, 2012. "Public Perceptions of Hurricane Modification," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(7), pages 1194-1206, July.
    3. Arnout R. H. Fischer & Aarieke E. I. De Jong & Rob De Jonge & Lynn J. Frewer & Maarten J. Nauta, 2005. "Improving Food Safety in the Domestic Environment: The Need for a Transdisciplinary Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 503-517, June.
    4. Thomas Webler & Seth Tuler, 2021. "Four Decades of Public Participation in Risk Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 503-518, March.
    5. Hokstad, Per & Steiro, Trygve, 2006. "Overall strategy for risk evaluation and priority setting of risk regulations," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 100-111.
    6. Lobb, Alexandra E., 2004. "A Methodological Review of the Impacts of Risk and Trust on Consumer Behaviour Towards Food Safety," 84th Seminar, February 8-11, 2004, Zeist, The Netherlands 24994, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Nathan F. Dieckmann & Robin Gregory & Ellen Peters & Robert Hartman, 2017. "Seeing What You Want to See: How Imprecise Uncertainty Ranges Enhance Motivated Reasoning," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 471-486, March.
    8. Anna Rabinovich & Thomas A. Morton, 2012. "Unquestioned Answers or Unanswered Questions: Beliefs About Science Guide Responses to Uncertainty in Climate Change Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(6), pages 992-1002, June.
    9. Adam Corner & Lorraine Whitmarsh & Dimitrios Xenias, 2012. "Uncertainty, scepticism and attitudes towards climate change: biased assimilation and attitude polarisation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 114(3), pages 463-478, October.
    10. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.

    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:taf:jriskr:v:6:y:2003:i:1:p:75-85. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    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.