14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The effects of communicating uncertainty on public trust in facts and numbers

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Significance

          Does openly communicating uncertainty around facts and numbers necessarily undermine audiences’ trust in the facts, or the communicators? Despite concerns among scientists, experts, and journalists, this has not been studied extensively. In four experiments and one field experiment on the BBC News website, words and numerical ranges were used to communicate uncertainty in news article-like texts. The texts included contested topics such as climate change and immigration statistics. While people’s prior beliefs about topics influenced their trust in the facts, they did not influence how people responded to the uncertainty being communicated. Communicating uncertainty numerically only exerted a minor effect on trust. Knowing this should allow academics and science communicators to be more transparent about the limits of human knowledge.

          Abstract

          Uncertainty is inherent to our knowledge about the state of the world yet often not communicated alongside scientific facts and numbers. In the “posttruth” era where facts are increasingly contested, a common assumption is that communicating uncertainty will reduce public trust. However, a lack of systematic research makes it difficult to evaluate such claims. We conducted five experiments—including one preregistered replication with a national sample and one field experiment on the BBC News website (total n = 5,780)—to examine whether communicating epistemic uncertainty about facts across different topics (e.g., global warming, immigration), formats (verbal vs. numeric), and magnitudes (high vs. low) influences public trust. Results show that whereas people do perceive greater uncertainty when it is communicated, we observed only a small decrease in trust in numbers and trustworthiness of the source, and mostly for verbal uncertainty communication. These results could help reassure all communicators of facts and science that they can be more open and transparent about the limits of human knowledge.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Ambiguity Aversion and Comparative Ignorance

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics.

              Expertise is a prerequisite for communicator credibility, entailing the knowledge and ability to be accurate. Trust also is essential to communicator credibility. Audiences view trustworthiness as the motivation to be truthful. Identifying whom to trust follows systematic principles. People decide quickly another's apparent intent: Who is friend or foe, on their side or not, or a cooperator or competitor. Those seemingly on their side are deemed warm (friendly, trustworthy). People then decide whether the other is competent to enact those intents. Perception of scientists, like other social perceptions, involves inferring both their apparent intent (warmth) and capability (competence). To illustrate, we polled adults online about typical American jobs, rated as American society views them, on warmth and competence dimensions, as well as relevant emotions. Ambivalently perceived high-competence but low-warmth, "envied" professions included lawyers, chief executive officers, engineers, accountants, scientists, and researchers. Being seen as competent but cold might not seem problematic until one recalls that communicator credibility requires not just status and expertise but also trustworthiness (warmth). Other research indicates the risk from being enviable. Turning to a case study of scientific communication, another online sample of adults described public attitudes toward climate scientists specifically. Although distrust is low, the apparent motive to gain research money is distrusted. The literature on climate science communicators agrees that the public trusts impartiality, not persuasive agendas. Overall, communicator credibility needs to address both expertise and trustworthiness. Scientists have earned audiences' respect, but not necessarily their trust. Discussing, teaching, and sharing information can earn trust to show scientists' trustworthy intentions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
                Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A
                pnas
                pnas
                PNAS
                Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
                National Academy of Sciences
                0027-8424
                1091-6490
                7 April 2020
                23 March 2020
                23 March 2020
                : 117
                : 14
                : 7672-7683
                Affiliations
                [1] aWinton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication, University of Cambridge , Cambridge CB3 0WA, United Kingdom;
                [2] bDepartment of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics, University of Cambridge , Cambridge CB3 0WA, United Kingdom;
                [3] cDepartment of Social Psychology, University of Groningen , 19712 TS Groningen, The Netherlands;
                [4] dCambridge Social Decision-Making Lab, Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge , Cambridge CB2 3RQ, United Kingdom
                Author notes
                1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: a.m.van.der.bles@ 123456rug.nl or sander.vanderlinden@ 123456psychol.cam.ac.uk .

                Edited by Arild Underdal, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, and approved February 20, 2020 (received for review August 7, 2019)

                Author contributions: A.M.v.d.B., S.v.d.L., A.L.J.F., and D.J.S. designed research; A.M.v.d.B., S.v.d.L., and A.L.J.F. performed research; A.M.v.d.B. and S.v.d.L. analyzed data; and A.M.v.d.B., S.v.d.L., A.L.J.F., and D.J.S. wrote the paper.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7953-9425
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0269-1744
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4115-161X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9350-6745
                Article
                201913678
                10.1073/pnas.1913678117
                7149229
                32205438
                48fb0556-335a-4976-acf2-e0901ba2cddf
                Copyright © 2020 the Author(s). Published by PNAS.

                This open access article is distributed under Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC BY).

                History
                Page count
                Pages: 12
                Funding
                Funded by: Nuffield Foundation 501100000279
                Award ID: OSP/43227
                Award Recipient : Anne Marthe Van der Bles Award Recipient : Sander Van der Linden Award Recipient : Alexandra Freeman Award Recipient : David Spiegelhalter
                Categories
                Social Sciences
                Psychological and Cognitive Sciences

                communication,uncertainty,trust,posttruth,contested
                communication, uncertainty, trust, posttruth, contested

                Comments

                Comment on this article