At Home on the Range? Lay Interpretations of Numerical Uncertainty Ranges

Risk Analysis

Volumn 35, Issue 7, 2015, Pages 1281-1295

  Dieckmann, Nathan F ^a,b   Peters, Ellen ^c   Gregory, Robin ^b  

^a OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b DECISION RESEARCH   (United States)

^c OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Ambiguity; Climate change; Numeracy; Risk communication; Uncertainty

Indexed keywords

PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS; STATISTICS;

AMBIGUITY; DISPLAY CHARACTERISTICS; GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATIONS; INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES; NUMERACY; RISK COMMUNICATION; SUBSTANTIAL VARIATIONS; UNCERTAINTY;

CLIMATE CHANGE;

CLIMATE CHANGE; COMMUNICATION; DATA INTERPRETATION; GRAPHICAL METHOD; NUMERICAL MODEL; PERCEPTION; PRECISION; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

EID: 84938076513     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/risa.12358     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The current and future consequences of global change, n.d. Available at: http://climate.nasa.gov/effects, Accessed August 18, 2013.
2. Dieckmann NF, Slovic P, Peters E. The use of narrative evidence and explicit likelihood by decision makers varying in numeracy. Risk Analysis, 2009; 29:1473-1488.
3. Budescu DV, Broomell S, Por HH. Improving communication of uncertainty in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Psychological Science, 2009; 20:299-308.
4. Dieckmann NF, Mauro R, Slovic P. The effects of presenting imprecise probabilities in intelligence forecasts. Risk Analysis, 2010; 30:987-1001.
5. Dieckmann NF, Peters E, Gregory R, Tusler M. Making sense of uncertainty: Advantages and disadvantages of providing an evaluative structure. Journal of Risk Research, 2012; 15:717-735.
6. Du N, Budescu DV, Shelly MK, Omer TC. The appeal of vague financial forecasts. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2011; 114:179-189.
7. Durbach IN, Stewart TJ. An experimental study of the effect of uncertainty representation on decision making. European Journal of Operational Research, 2011; 214:380-392.
8. Joslyn S, Savelli S, Nadav-Greenberg L. Reducing probabilistic weather forecasts to the worst-case scenario: Anchoring effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied, 2011; 17:342-353.
9. Joslyn SL, LeClerc JE. Uncertainty forecasts improve weather-related decisions and attenuate the effects of forecast error. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied, 2012; 18:126-140.
10. Gregory R, Dieckmann NF, Peters E, Failing L, Long G, Tusler M. Deliberative disjunction: Expert and public understanding of outcome uncertainty. Risk Analysis, 2012; 32:2071-2083.
11. Mellers BA, Richards V, Birnbaum MH. Distributional theories of impression formation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1992; 51:313-343.
12. Ellsberg D. Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1961; 75:643-669.
13. Cumming G, Finch S. Inference by eye: Confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. American Psychologist, 2005; 60:170-180.
14. Kruschke JK. Doing Bayesian Data Analysis: A Tutorial with R and BUGS. Burlington, MA: Academic Press/Elsevier, 2011.
15. Speirs-Bridge A, Fidler F, McBride M, Flander L, Cumming G, Burgman M. Reducing overconfidence in the interval judgments of experts. Risk Analysis, 2010; 30:512-523.
16. Spiegelhalter DJ, Short I, Pearson M. Visualizing uncertainty about the future. Science, 2011; 333:1393-1400.
17. Rinne LF, Mazzocco MMM. Inferring uncertainty from interval estimates: Effects of alpha level and numeracy. Judgment and Decision Making, 2013; 8:330-344.
18. Reyna VF, Nelson WL, Han PK, Dieckmann NF. How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 2009; 135:943-973.
19. Peters E, Dieckmann NF, Dixon A, Hibbard JH, Mertz CK. Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers. Medical Care and Research Review, 2007; 64:169-190.
20. Peters E, Hibbard JH, Slovic P, Dieckmann NF. Numeracy skill and the communication, comprehension, and use of risk-benefit information. Health Affairs (Millwood), 2007; 26:741-748.
21. Peters E, Västfjäll D, Slovic P, Mertz CK, Mazzocco K, Dickert S. Numeracy and decision making. Psychological Science, 2006; 17:407-413.
22. Peters E. Beyond comprehension: The role of numeracy in judgments and decisions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2012; 21:31-35.
23. Chesney DL, Obrecht NA. Statistical judgments are influenced by the implied likelihood that samples represent the same population. Memory and Cognition, 2012; 40:420-433.
24. Obrecht NA, Chesney DL. Sample representativeness affects whether judgments are influenced by base rate or sample size. Acta Psychologica (Amst), 2013; 142:370-382.
25. Fischhoff B. Communicating uncertainty: Fulfilling the duty to inform. Issues in Science and Technology (serial on the Internet). 2012: Available at: http://www.issues.org/28.4/fischhoff.html.
26. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2008.
27. Morgan MG, Dowlatabadi H, Henrion M, Keith D, Keith D, Lempert R, McBride S, Small M, Wilbanks T. Best practice approaches for characterizing, communicating and incorporating scientific uncertainty in climate decision making (Report No. CCSP 5.2) 2009, January. Available at: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap5-2/sap5-2-final-report-all.pdf.
28. Weller JA, Dieckmann NF, Tusler M, Mertz CK, Burns WJ, Peters E. Development and testing of an abbreviated numeracy scale: A Rasch analysis approach. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2013; 26:198-212.
29. Slovic P. From Shakespeare to Simon: Speculation-and some evidence-about man's ability to process information. Oregon Research I Research Monograph, 1972; 12(2):1-29.
30. Douglas M, Wildavsky A. Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982.
31. Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman CJ. Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
32. Dieckmann NF, Peters E, Gregory R. Seeing what you want to see: How imprecise uncertainty ranges enhance motivated cognition. Risk Analysis 2014, under review.