Seeing What You Want to See: How Imprecise Uncertainty Ranges Enhance Motivated Reasoning

Risk Analysis

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 471-486

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

^a OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b DECISION RESEARCH   (United States)

^c OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d MITRE CORPORATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Motivated reasoning; risk communication; uncertainty; worldviews

Indexed keywords

RISK ANALYSIS; SAFETY ENGINEERING;

END USERS; MOTIVATED REASONING; NOCV1; NOVEL CRITERION; NUMERICAL RANGE; RISK COMMUNICATION; UNCERTAINTY; WORLDVIEWS;

PHYSIOLOGY;

COMMUNICATION; NUMERICAL METHOD; PERCEPTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS; WORLDVIEW;

ARTICLE; INTELLIGENCE; MOTIVATION; NUMERACY; PERCEPTION; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 84992349082     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/risa.12639     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Frewer L, Hunt S, Brennan M, Kuznesof S, Ness M, Ritson C. The views of scientific experts on how the public conceptualize uncertainty. Journal of Risk Research, 2003; 6:75–85.
2. Dieckmann NF, Mauro R, Slovic P. The effects of presenting imprecise probabilities in intelligence forecasts. Risk Analysis, 2010; 30:987–1001.
3. Lichtenstein S, Newman JR. Empirical scaling of common verbal phrases associated with numerical probabilities. Psychonomic Science, 1967; 9:563–564.
4. Wallsten TS, Budescu DV. A review of human linguistic probability processing: General principles and empirical evidence. Knowledge Engineering Review, 1995; 10:43–62.
5. Clark DA. Verbal uncertainty expression: A critical review of two decades of research. Current Psychology, 1990; 9:203–235.
6. Budescu DV, Por H-H, Broomell SB. Efffective communication of uncertainty in the IPCC reports. Climatic Change, 2012; 113:181–200.
7. Dieckmann NF, Peters E, Gregory R. At home on the range? Lay perceptions of uncertainty distributions. Risk Analysis, 2015; 35:1281–1295.
8. Kunda Z. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 1990; 108:480–498.
9. Kuhn D. How do people know? Psychological Science, 2001; 12:1–8.
10. Douglas M, Wildavsky A. Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1982.
11. Peters E, Slovic P. The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1996; 26:1427–1453.
12. Dunning D. A newer look: Motivated social cognition and the schematic representation of social concepts. Psychological Inquiry, 1999; 10:1–11.
13. Kahan DM, Braman D, Gastil J, Slovic P, Mertz CK. Culture and identity-protective cognition: Explaining the white male effect in risk perception. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2007; 4:465–505.
14. Kahan DM, Peters E, Wittlin M, Slovic P, Ouellette LL, Braman D, Mandel G. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2012; 2:732–735.
15. Gauchat G. Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review, 2012; 77:167–187.
16. Whitmarsh LE. Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: Dimensions, determinants and change over time. Global Environmental Change, 2011; 21:690–700.
17. Marx SM, Weber EU, Orlove BS, Leiserowitz A, Krantz DH, Roncoli C, Phillips J. Communication and mental processes: Experiential and analytic processing of uncertain climate information. Global Environmental Change, 2007; 17:47–58.
18. Peters E, Dieckmann NF, Västfjäll D, Mertx CK, Slovic P. Bringing meaning to numbers: The impact of evaluative categories on decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2009; 15:213–227.
19. 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.
20. Hsee CK. Elastic justification: How tempting but task-irrelevant factors influence decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1995; 62:330–337.
21. Hartman R, Dieckmann NF, Stantsy B, Sprenger A, DeMarree K. Modeling attitudes toward science: Development and validation of an attitudes toward science scale (ATS). Manuscript submitted for publication, 2015.
22. 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.
23. Stankov L. g Factor: Issues of decision and interpretation. Pp. 279–293 in O Wilhelm; RWV Engel (eds). Handbook of Understanding and Measuring Intelligence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005.
24. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus User's Guide, 7th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012.
25. Raftery AE. Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology 1995; 25:111–163.
26. Wilson EB. Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1927; 22:209–212.
27. Cokely ET, Galesic M, Schultz E, Ghazal S, Garcia-Retamero R. Measuring risk literacy: The Berlin numeracy test. Judgment and Decision Making, 2012; 7:25–47.
28. Slovic P. From Shakespeare to Simon: Speculation—and some evidence—about man's ability to process information. Oregon Research Institute Research Monograph, 1972; 12(2):1–29.
29. Schweitzer ME, Hsee CK. Stretching the truth: Elastic justification and motivated communication of uncertain information. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2002; 25:185–201.
30. Piercey MD. Motivated reasoning and verbal vs. numerical probability assessment: Evidence from an accounting context. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2009; 108:330–341.
31. Dieckmann NF, Peters E, Gregory R, Tuisler, M. Making sense of uncertainty: Advantages and disadvantages of providing an evaluative structure. Journal of Risk Research, 2012; 15:717–735.
32. Gregory R, Dieckmann NF. Thinking outside the box: Communicating effectively about climate change uncertainty. Manuscript submitted for publication, 2015.