Unquestioned Answers or Unanswered Questions: Beliefs About Science Guide Responses to Uncertainty in Climate Change Risk Communication

In two experimental studies we investigated the effect of beliefs about the nature and purpose of science (classical vs. Kuhnian models of science) on responses to uncertainty in scientific messages about climate change risk. The results revealed a significant interaction between both measured (Study 1) and manipulated (Study 2) beliefs about science and the level of communicated uncertainty on willingness to act in line with the message. Specifically, messages that communicated high uncertainty were more persuasive for participants who shared an understanding of science as debate than for those who believed that science is a search for absolute truth. In addition, participants who had a concept of science as debate were more motivated by higher (rather than lower) uncertainty in climate change messages. The results suggest that achieving alignment between the general public's beliefs about science and the style of the scientific messages is crucial for successful risk communication in science. Accordingly, rather than uncertainty always undermining the effectiveness of science communication, uncertainty can enhance message effects when it fits the audience's understanding of what science is.

[1]  Arianna Betti,et al.  The Classical Model of Science: a millennia-old model of scientific rationality , 2010, Synthese.

[2]  M. Zeelenberg,et al.  The Discounting of Ambiguous Information in Economic Decision Making , 2003 .

[3]  R. Abrams,et al.  Psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance , 1986 .

[4]  A. Tversky,et al.  The Disjunction Effect in Choice under Uncertainty , 1992 .

[5]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Perceived risk, trust, and democracy , 1993 .

[6]  Mitchell Ness,et al.  The views of scientific experts on how the public conceptualize uncertainty , 2003 .

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

[8]  Patricia G. Devine,et al.  Attitude Importance, Forewarning of Message Content, and Resistance to Persuasion , 2000 .

[9]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[10]  S. Marette,et al.  The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain , 2011, Public understanding of science.

[11]  F. Berkhout.  Reconstructing boundaries and reason in the climate debate , 2010 .

[12]  Gideon Keren,et al.  On the robustness and possible accounts of ambiguity aversion , 1999 .

[13]  Ann Bostrom,et al.  Communicating Risk: Wireless and Hardwired , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[14]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Decision Making under Ambiguity , 1986 .

[15]  M. J. Quadrel,et al.  Risk perception and communication , 2008 .

[16]  S. Chaiken,et al.  An attribution analysis of persuasion: Volume 3 , 1981 .

[17]  Esteban Krotz.  The Essential tensión: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change , 1980 .

[18]  P. Slovic,et al.  Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust. , 1995, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[19]  Ben R. Newell,et al.  ThE PSyChOlOgy Of glOBAl WARMINg Improving the Fit between the Science and the Message , 2010 .

[20]  Shawn P. Curley,et al.  The center and range of the probability interval as factors affecting ambiguity preferences , 1985 .

[21]  M. Kendall,et al.  The Logic of Scientific Discovery. , 1959 .

[22]  Brian G. Southwell,et al.  Science TV news exposure predicts science beliefs: Real world effects , 2009 .

[23]  E. S. Knowles,et al.  Resistance and Persuasion , 2004 .

[24]  R. Löfstedt,et al.  Social Trust and the Management of Risk , 1999 .

[25]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  The Influence of Knowledge and Deference toward Scientific Authority: A Media Effects Model for Public Attitudes toward Nanotechnology , 2006 .

[26]  Maja Horst.  Public Expectations of Gene Therapy , 2007 .

[27]  Craig R. Fox,et al.  Ambiguity Aversion, Comparative Ignorance, and Decision Context , 2002 .

[28]  V T Covello,et al.  The Determinants of Trust and Credibility in Environmental Risk Communication: An Empirical Study , 1997, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[29]  Pamela J. Bretschneider,et al.  The future that may (or may not) come: How framing changes responses to uncertainty in climate change communications , 2011 .

[30]  Paul Slovic,et al.  The Effects of Presenting Imprecise Probabilities in Intelligence Forecasts , 2010, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[31]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks , 2011 .

[32]  Stephen Zehr,et al.  Public representations of scientific uncertainty about global climate change , 2000 .

[33]  D. Richards,et al.  Understanding uncertainty , 2012, Evidence-Based Dentistry.

[34]  Thomas A. Morton,et al.  Communicating climate science: The role of perceived communicator’s motives. , 2012 .

[35]  A. Leiserowitz,et al.  Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement , 2011 .

[36]  D. Hine,et al.  Individual Restraint and Group Efficiency in Commons Dilemmas: The Effects of Two Types of Environmental Uncertainty1 , 1996 .

[37]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[38]  Max Henrion,et al.  Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis , 1990 .

[39]  Gary James Jason,et al.  The Logic of Scientific Discovery , 1988 .

[40]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Ambiguity and Uncertainty in Probabilistic Inference. , 1985 .

[41]  Golem science and the public understanding of science: from deficit to dilemma , 1999 .

[42]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Lay views on uncertainty in environmental health risk assessment , 1998 .