IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v37y2017i1p40-51.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Communicating Uncertain Science to the Public: How Amount and Source of Uncertainty Impact Fatalism, Backlash, and Overload

Author

Listed:
  • Jakob D. Jensen
  • Manusheela Pokharel
  • Courtney L. Scherr
  • Andy J. King
  • Natasha Brown
  • Christina Jones

Abstract

Public dissemination of scientific research often focuses on the finding (e.g., nanobombs kill lung cancer) rather than the uncertainty/limitations (e.g., in mice). Adults (n = 880) participated in an experiment where they read a manipulated news report about cancer research (a) that contained either low or high uncertainty (b) that was attributed to the scientists responsible for the research (disclosure condition) or an unaffiliated scientist (dueling condition). Compared to the dueling condition, the disclosure condition triggered less prevention‐focused cancer fatalism and nutritional backlash.

Suggested Citation

  • Jakob D. Jensen & Manusheela Pokharel & Courtney L. Scherr & Andy J. King & Natasha Brown & Christina Jones, 2017. "Communicating Uncertain Science to the Public: How Amount and Source of Uncertainty Impact Fatalism, Backlash, and Overload," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 40-51, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:1:p:40-51
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12600
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12600
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12600?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter M. Wiedemann & Andrea T. Thalmann & Markus A. Grutsch & Holger Schütz, 2006. "The Impacts of Precautionary Measures and the Disclosure of Scientific Uncertainty on EMF Risk Perception and Trust," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(4), pages 361-372, June.
    2. Lane, D.S. & Polednak, A.P. & Burg, M.A., 1989. "The impact of media coverage of Nancy Reagan's experience on breast cancer screening," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 79(11), pages 1551-1552.
    3. Mary C. Politi & Paul K. J. Han & Nananda F. Col, 2007. "Communicating the Uncertainty of Harms and Benefits of Medical Interventions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 681-695, September.
    4. Paul K. J. Han & William M. P. Klein & Tom Lehman & Bill Killam & Holly Massett & Andrew N. Freedman, 2011. "Communication of Uncertainty Regarding Individualized Cancer Risk Estimates," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(2), pages 354-366, March.
    5. Kimberly M. Thompson, 2002. "Variability and Uncertainty Meet Risk Management and Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 647-654, 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. Michael Greenberg & Anthony Cox & Vicki Bier & Jim Lambert & Karen Lowrie & Warner North & Michael Siegrist & Felicia Wu, 2020. "Risk Analysis: Celebrating the Accomplishments and Embracing Ongoing Challenges," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2113-2127, November.
    2. repec:wrk:wrkemf:22 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Jiahui Lu & Meishan Zhang & Yan Zheng & Qiyu Li, 2021. "Communication of Uncertainty about Preliminary Evidence and the Spread of Its Inferred Misinformation during the COVID-19 Pandemic—A Weibo Case Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-17, November.
    4. Matija Franklin & Tomas Folke & Kai Ruggeri, 2019. "Optimising nudges and boosts for financial decisions under uncertainty," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-13, December.
    5. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    6. Kazuya Nakayachi & Branden B. Johnson & Kazuki Koketsu, 2018. "Effects of Acknowledging Uncertainty about Earthquake Risk Estimates on San Francisco Bay Area Residents’ Beliefs, Attitudes, and Intentions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(4), pages 666-679, April.

    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. Dean, Marleah, 2016. "“It’s not if I get cancer, it’s when I get cancer”: BRCA-positive patients’ (un)certain health experiences regarding hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 21-27.
    2. Toshio Fujimi & Masahide Watanabe & Hirokazu Tatano, 2021. "Public trust, perceived accuracy, perceived likelihood, and concern on multi-model climate projections communicated with different formats," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 1-20, June.
    3. A. E. Ades & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2006. "Evidence synthesis, parameter correlation and probabilistic sensitivity analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 373-381, April.
    4. Christoph Boehmert & Peter Wiedemann & Rodney Croft, 2016. "Improving Precautionary Communication in the EMF Field? Effects of Making Messages Consistent and Explaining the Effectiveness of Precautions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-18, October.
    5. Peter M. Wiedemann & Holger Schuetz & Franziska Boerner & Martin Clauberg & Rodney Croft & Rajesh Shukla & Toshiko Kikkawa & Ray Kemp & Jan M. Gutteling & Barney de Villiers & Flavia N. da Silva Medei, 2013. "When Precaution Creates Misunderstandings: The Unintended Effects of Precautionary Information on Perceived Risks, the EMF Case," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(10), pages 1788-1801, October.
    6. Cope, S. & Frewer, L.J. & Houghton, J. & Rowe, G. & Fischer, A.R.H. & de Jonge, J., 2010. "Consumer perceptions of best practice in food risk communication and management: Implications for risk analysis policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 349-357, August.
    7. Berger, Loïc & Bleichrodt, Han & Eeckhoudt, Louis, 2013. "Treatment decisions under ambiguity," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 559-569.
    8. Christoph Boehmert & Peter Wiedemann & Jonathon Pye & Rodney Croft, 2017. "The Effects of Precautionary Messages about Electromagnetic Fields from Mobile Phones and Base Stations Revisited: The Role of Recipient Characteristics," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 583-597, March.
    9. H. Christopher Frey, 2002. "Introduction to Special Section on Sensitivity Analysis and Summary of NCSU/USDA Workshop on Sensitivity Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 539-545, June.
    10. Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2011. "Cell Phones and Health Concerns: Impact of Knowledge and Voluntary Precautionary Recommendations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(2), pages 301-311, February.
    11. Gülbanu Kaptan & Arnout R.H. Fischer & Lynn J. Frewer, 2018. "Extrapolating understanding of food risk perceptions to emerging food safety cases," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(8), pages 996-1018, August.
    12. Fumie Yokota & Kimberly M. Thompson, 2004. "Value of Information Analysis in Environmental Health Risk Management Decisions: Past, Present, and Future," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 635-650, June.
    13. Avner Engel & Miryam Barad, 2003. "A methodology for modeling VVT risks and costs," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(3), pages 135-151.
    14. Roxane Foulser‐Piggott & Gary Bowman & Martin Hughes, 2020. "A Framework for Understanding Uncertainty in Seismic Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(1), pages 169-182, January.
    15. Richard A. Williams & Kimberly M. Thompson, 2004. "Integrated Analysis: Combining Risk and Economic Assessments While Preserving the Separation of Powers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1613-1623, December.
    16. Liesbeth Claassen & Ann Bostrom & Danielle R.M. Timmermans, 2016. "Focal points for improving communications about electromagnetic fields and health: a mental models approach," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(2), pages 246-269, February.
    17. Seth M. Noar & Benjamin M. Althouse & John W. Ayers & Diane B. Francis & Kurt M. Ribisl, 2015. "Cancer Information Seeking in the Digital Age," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(1), pages 16-21, January.
    18. Xuemei Fang & Liang Cao & Luyi Zhang & Binbin Peng, 2023. "Risk perception and resistance behavior intention of residents living near chemical industry parks: an empirical analysis in China," 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. 115(2), pages 1655-1675, January.
    19. David M. Hassenzahl, 2006. "Implications of Excessive Precision for Risk Comparisons: Lessons from the Past Four Decades," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1), pages 265-276, February.
    20. Peter M. Wiedemann & Andrea T. Thalmann & Markus A. Grutsch & Holger Schütz, 2006. "The Impacts of Precautionary Measures and the Disclosure of Scientific Uncertainty on EMF Risk Perception and Trust," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(4), pages 361-372, June.

    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:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:1:p:40-51. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.