Display options
Cite
Wiedemann P, Boerner FU, Freudenstein F. Effects of communicating uncertainty descriptions in hazard identification, risk characterization, and risk protection. PLoS One. 2021;16(7):e0253762doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253762.
Wiedemann, P., Boerner, F. U., & Freudenstein, F. (2021). Effects of communicating uncertainty descriptions in hazard identification, risk characterization, and risk protection. PloS one, 16(7), e0253762. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253762
Wiedemann, Peter, et al. "Effects of communicating uncertainty descriptions in hazard identification, risk characterization, and risk protection." PloS one vol. 16,7 (2021): e0253762. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253762
Wiedemann P, Boerner FU, Freudenstein F. Effects of communicating uncertainty descriptions in hazard identification, risk characterization, and risk protection. PLoS One. 2021 Jul 13;16(7):e0253762. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253762. eCollection 2021. PMID: 34255777; PMCID: PMC8277037.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 13;16(7):e0253762. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253762. eCollection 2021.

Effects of communicating uncertainty descriptions in hazard identification, risk characterization, and risk protection.

PloS one

Peter Wiedemann, Franziska U Boerner, Frederik Freudenstein

Affiliations

  1. Jülich Research Centre, Jülich, Germany.
  2. Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research, Illawarra Health and Medical Research Institute, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
  3. Centre for Population Health Research on Electromagnetic Energy, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
  4. School of Psychology, Faculty of Arts, Social Sciences & Humanities, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
  5. Institute of Occupational Medicine, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
  6. Department of Risk Communication, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
  7. Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

PMID: 34255777 PMCID: PMC8277037 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253762

Abstract

Uncertainty is a crucial issue for any risk assessment. Consequently, it also poses crucial challenges for risk communications. Many guidebooks advise reporting uncertainties in risk assessments, expecting that the audience will appreciate this disclosure. However, the empirical evidence about the effects of uncertainty reporting is sparse and inconclusive. Therefore, based on examples of potential health risks of electromagnetic fields (EMF), three experiments were conducted analysing the effects of communicating uncertainties separately for hazard identification, risk characterisation and risk protection. The setups aimed to explore how reporting and how explaining of uncertainty affects dependent variables such as risk perception, perceived competence of the risk assessors, and trust in risk management. Each of the three experiments used a 2x2 design with a first factor presenting uncertainty descriptions (as used in public controversies on EMF related health effects) or describing a certainty conditions; and a second factor explaining the causes of uncertainties (by pointing at knowledge gaps) or not explaining them. The study results indicate that qualitative uncertainty descriptions regarding hazard identification reduce the confidence in the professional competencies of the assessors. In contrast, a quantitative uncertainty description in risk characterisation-regarding the magnitude of the risk-does not affect any of the dependent variables. Concerning risk protection, trust in exposure limit values is not affected by qualitative uncertainty information. However, the qualitative description of uncertainty regarding the adequacy of protection amplifies fears. Furthermore, explaining this uncertainty results in lower text understandability.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

  1. R Soc Open Sci. 2019 May 8;6(5):181870 - PubMed
  2. Med Decis Making. 2009 May-Jun;29(3):391-403 - PubMed
  3. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Apr 7;117(14):7672-7683 - PubMed
  4. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1999 Sep;79(3):179-198 - PubMed
  5. Environ Health Perspect. 2005 Apr;113(4):402-5 - PubMed
  6. EFSA J. 2019 Jan 16;17(1):e05520 - PubMed
  7. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2016 Oct;145(10):1280-1297 - PubMed
  8. Risk Anal. 2019 Apr;39(4):777-791 - PubMed
  9. Med Decis Making. 2010 Sep-Oct;30(5):566-77 - PubMed
  10. Front Psychol. 2015 May 20;6:674 - PubMed
  11. Risk Anal. 2017 Jan;37(1):40-51 - PubMed
  12. Risk Anal. 2003 Aug;23(4):781-9 - PubMed
  13. Bioelectromagnetics. 2014 Jul;35(5):373-8 - PubMed
  14. Risk Anal. 1995 Aug;15(4):485-94 - PubMed
  15. Psychol Sci. 2009 Mar;20(3):299-308 - PubMed
  16. Annu Rev Psychol. 1998;49:259-87 - PubMed
  17. Annu Rev Psychol. 2006;57:227-54 - PubMed
  18. Span J Psychol. 2019 Mar 20;22:E10 - PubMed
  19. Risk Anal. 2010 Jun;30(6):987-1001 - PubMed
  20. Psychol Bull. 1990 Nov;108(3):480-98 - PubMed
  21. BMC Public Health. 2012 Jan 25;12:80 - PubMed
  22. Risk Anal. 1999 Aug;19(4):689-701 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types