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

Journal of Risk Research

Volumn 15, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 717-735

  Dieckmann, Nathan F ^a   Peters, Ellen ^b   Gregory, Robin ^a   Tusler, Martin ^b  

^a DECISION RESEARCH   (United States)

^b OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

ambiguity; decision analysis; evaluability; risk communication; uncertainty

Indexed keywords

AMBIGUITY; DECISION MAKERS; EVALUABILITY; INFORMATION PROVIDER; NUMERICAL RANGE; RISK COMMUNICATION; SUMMARY TABLES; UNCERTAINTY; UNCERTAINTY INFORMATIONS;

DECISION THEORY; ENGINEERING; SAFETY ENGINEERING;

UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

EID: 84864031759     PISSN: 13669877     EISSN: 14664461     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2012.666760     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Budescu, D.V., S. Broomell, and H.H. Por. 2009. Improving communication of uncertainty in the reports of the Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Psychological Science 20: 299-308.
2. Clemen, R.T. 2004. Making hard decisions: An introduction to decision analysis . 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Duxbury.
3. Dieckmann, N.F., P. Slovic, and E. Peters. 2009. The use of narrative evidence and explicit likelihood by decision makers varying in numeracy. Risk Analysis 29: 1473-88.
4. Gregory, R., N.F. Dieckmann, E. Peters, L. Failing, G. Long, and M. Tusler. 2011. Deliberative disjunction: Expert and public understanding of outcome uncertainty. Manuscript submitted for publication.
5. Gregory, R., L. Failing, M. Harstone, G. Long, T. McDaniels, and D. Ohlson. 2012. Structured decision making: A practical guide to environmental management choices. New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
6. Gurmankin, A.D., J. Baron, and K. Armstrong. 2004. The effect of numerical statements of risk on trust and comfort with hypothetical physician risk communication. Medical Decision Making 24: 265-71. (Pubitemid 38656310)
7. Hsee, C.K., G. Loewenstein, S. Blount, and M.H. Bazerman. 1999. Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review and theoretical analysis. Psychological Bulletin 125: 576-90.
8. Joslyn, S., D.W. Jones, K. Schweitzer, J. Pyles, and P. Tewson. 2005. Designing tools for uncertainty estimation in naval weather forecasting. Proceedings of the 7th International NDM Conference, ed. Jan Maarten C. Schraagen, in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
9. Keeney, R.L. 1982. Decision analysis: An overview. Operations Research 30: 803-38.
10. Peters, E., N.F. Dieckmann, C.K. Daniel Västfjäll, P. Slovic Mertz, and J.H. Hibbard. 2009. Bringing meaning to numbers: The impact of evaluative categories on decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 15: 213-27.
11. Peters, E., N.F. Dieckmann, A. Dixon, J.H. Hibbard, and C.K. Mertz. 2007. Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers. Medical Care Research and Review 64: 169-90. (Pubitemid 46570715)
12. Peters, E., P. Sol Hart, and L. Fraenkel. 2011. Informing patients: The influence of numeracy, framing, and format of side-effect information on risk perceptions. Medical Decision Making 31: 432-6.
13. Schwartz, B. 2004. The paradox of choice: Why more is less. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
14. Slovic, P. 1972. Information processing, situation specificity, and the generality of risk-taking behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 22: 128-34.
15. Weller, J.A., N.F. Dieckmann, M. Tusler, C.K. Mertz, and E. Peters. Forthcoming. Development and testing of an abbreviated numeracy scale: A Rasch Analysis approach. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making.
16. Wilson, E.B. 1927. Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association 22: 209-12.
17. Zikmund-Fisher, B.J., A. Fagerlin, K. Keeton, and P.A. Ubel. 2007. Does labeling prenatal screening test results as negative or positive affect a woman's responses? American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 197, no. 5: 528e1-6.