Making sense of uncertainty: advantages and disadvantages of providing an evaluative structure

In many decision contexts, there is uncertainty in the assessed probabilities and expected consequences of different actions. The fundamental goal for information providers is to present uncertainty in a way that is not overly complicated, yet sufficiently detailed to prompt decision-makers to think about the implications of this uncertainty for the decision at hand. In two experiments, we assess the pros and cons of providing an evaluative structure to facilitate the comprehension and use of uncertainty information and explore whether people who vary in numeracy perceive and use uncertainty in different ways. Participants were presented with scenarios and summary tables describing the anticipated consequences of different environmental-management actions. Our results suggest that different uncertainty formats may lead people to think in particular ways. Laypeople had an easier time understanding the general concept of uncertainty when an evaluative label was presented (e.g. uncertainty is High or Low). However, when asked about a specific possible outcome for an attribute, participants performed better when presented with numerical ranges. Our results also suggest that there appear to be advantages to using evaluative labels, in that they can highlight aspects of uncertainty information that may otherwise be overlooked in more complex numerical displays. However, the salience of evaluative labels appeared to cause some participants to put undue weight on this information, which resulted in value-inconsistent choices. The simplicity and power of providing an evaluative structure is a double-edged sword.

[1]  E. B. Wilson Probable Inference, the Law of Succession, and Statistical Inference , 1927 .

[2]  Ellen Peters,et al.  Development and Testing of an Abbreviated Numeracy Scale: A Rasch Analysis Approach , 2012, Journal of behavioral decision making.

[3]  Susan Joslyn,et al.  Designing Tools for Uncertainty Estimation in Naval Weather Forecasting , 2005 .

[4]  Robert T. Clemen,et al.  Making Hard Decisions: An Introduction to Decision Analysis , 1997 .

[5]  David V. Budescu,et al.  Improving Communication of Uncertainty in the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2009, Psychological science.

[6]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Bringing meaning to numbers: the impact of evaluative categories on decisions. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[7]  Angela Fagerlin,et al.  Does labeling prenatal screening test results as negative or positive affect a woman's responses? , 2007, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[8]  Jonathan Baron,et al.  The Effect of Numerical Statements of Risk on Trust and Comfort with Hypothetical Physician Risk Communication , 2004, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[9]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Structured Decision Making: A Practical Guide to Environmental Management Choices , 2012 .

[10]  P. Slovic,et al.  The Use of Narrative Evidence and Explicit Likelihood by Decisionmakers Varying in Numeracy , 2009, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[11]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Less Is More in Presenting Quality Information to Consumers , 2007, Medical care research and review : MCRR.

[12]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Information processing, situation specificity, and the generality of risk-taking behavior , 1972 .

[13]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Deliberative Disjunction: Expert and Public Understanding of Outcome Uncertainty , 2012, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[14]  N. Sanders,et al.  Journal of behavioral decision making: "The need for contextual and technical knowledge in judgmental forecasting", 5 (1992) 39-52 , 1992 .

[15]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Options: A Review and Theoretical Analysis , 1999 .

[16]  R. Keeney Decision analysis: an overview. , 1982, Operations research.

[17]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Feature Article - Decision Analysis: An Overview , 1982, Oper. Res..

[18]  B. Schwartz The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less , 2004 .