Climatic Change

, Volume 113, Issue 2, pp 181–200 | Cite as

Effective communication of uncertainty in the IPCC reports

  • David V. Budescu
  • Han-Hui Por
  • Stephen B. Broomell
Article

Abstract

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) publishes periodical assessment reports informing policymakers and the public on issues relevant to the understanding of human induced climate change. The IPCC uses a set of 7 verbal descriptions of uncertainty, such as unlikely and very likely to convey the underlying imprecision of its forecasts and conclusions. We report results of an experiment comparing the effectiveness of communication using these words and their numerical counterparts. We show that the public consistently misinterprets the probabilistic statements in the IPCC report in a regressive fashion, and that there are large individual differences in the interpretation of these statements, which are associated with the respondents’ ideology and their views and beliefs about climate change issues. Most importantly our results suggest that using a dual (verbal—numerical) scale would be superior to the current mode of communication as it (a) increases the level of differentiation between the various terms, (b) increases the consistency of interpretation of these terms, and (c) increases the level of consistency with the IPCC guidelines. Most importantly, these positive effects are independent of the respondents’ ideological and environmental views.

Supplementary material

10584_2011_330_MOESM1_ESM.docx (664 kb)
Online Resource(DOCX 663 kb)

References

  1. Bastardi A, Uhlmann EL, Ross L (2011) Wishful thinking: belief, desire, and the motivated evaluation of scientific evidence. Psychol Sci 22:731–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Begley S (2007) The truth about denial. Newsweek 150:20–29Google Scholar
  3. Beyth-Marom R (1982) How probable is probable? A numerical translation of verbal probability expressions. J Forecast 1:257–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Broomell S, Budescu DV, Por H (2009) Beliefs and actions: an analysis of the public’s attitudes toward global climate change. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Judgment and Decision Making, BostonGoogle Scholar
  5. Brun W, Teigen KH (1988) Verbal probabilities: ambiguous, context-dependent, or both? Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 41:390–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryant G, Norman G (1980) Expressions of probability: words and numbers. N Engl J Med 302:411Google Scholar
  7. Budescu DV, Broomell SB, Por HH (2009) Improving communication of uncertainty in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Psychol Sci 20:299–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Budescu DV, Wallsten TS (1990) Dyadic decisions with numerical and verbal probabilities. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 46:240–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Budescu DV, Wallsten TS (1985) Consistency in interpretation of probabilistic phrases. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 36:391–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Budescu DV, Wallsten TS (1987) Subjective estimation of precise and vague uncertainties. In: Wright G, Ayton P (eds) Judgmental forecasting. Wiley, New York, pp 63–82Google Scholar
  11. Budescu DV, Weinberg S, Wallsten TS (1988) Decisions based on numerically and verbally expressed uncertainties. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 14:281–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Budescu DV, Karelitz TM, Wallsten TS (2003) Predicting the directionality of probability words from their membership functions. J Behav Decis Mak 16:159–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chesley GR (1985) Interpretation of uncertainty expressions. Contemp Account Res 2:179–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clarke VA, Ruffin CL, Hill DJ, Beamen AL (1992) Ratings of orally presented verbal expressions of probability by a heterogeneous sample. J Appl Soc Psychol 22:638–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dhami MK, Wallsten TS (2005) Interpersonal comparison of subjective probabilities: toward translating linguistic probabilities. Mem Cognit 33:1057–1068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Erev I, Cohen BL (1990) Verbal versus numerical probabilities: Efficiency, biases, and the preference paradox. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 45:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Erev I, Wallsten TS, Neal M (1991) Vagueness, ambiguity, and the cost of mutual understanding. Psychol Sci 2:231–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. illenbaum S, Wallsten TS, Cohen BL, Cox JA (1991) Some effects of vocabulary and communication task on the understanding and use of vague probability expressions. Am J Psychol 104:35–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fischer K, Jungermann H (1996) Rarely occurring headaches and rarely occurring blindness: is rarely = rarely? The meaning of verbal frequentistic labels in specific medical contexts. J Behav Decis Mak 9:153–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischhoff B (1994) What forecasts (seem to) mean. Int J Forecast 10:387–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frederick S (2005) Cognitive reflection and decision making. J Econ Perspect 19(4):25–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fox CR, Irwin JR (1998) The role of context in the communication of uncertain beliefs. Basic Appl Soc Psychol 20:57–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hamm RM (1991) Selection of verbal probabilities: a solution for some problems of verbal probability expression. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 48:193–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heath Y, Gifford R (2006) Free-market ideology and environmental degradation: the case of belief in global climate change. Environ Behav 38:48–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ha-Duong M, Swart R, Bernstein L, Petersen R (2007) Uncertainty management in the IPCC: agreeing to disagree. Glob Environ Chang 17:8–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001) Summary for policymakers: contribution of working group I to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Retrieved July 2009 from http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/WG1_TAR-FRONT.pdf
  27. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2005) Guidance notes for lead authors of the IPCC fourth assessment report on addressing uncertainties. Retrieved February 2011 from http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/ar4-workshops-express-meetings/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf
  28. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Summary for policymakers: contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Retrieved February 2007 from http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
  29. Johnson EM (1973) Numerical encoding of qualitative expressions of uncertainty (Technical paper No. 250). US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral & Social SciencesGoogle Scholar
  30. Karelitz TM, Budescu DV (2004) You say “Probable” and I say “Likely”: improving interpersonal communication with verbal probability phrases. J Exp Psychol Appl 10:25–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Klayman J, Ha Y (1987) Confirmation, disconfirmation and information in hypothesis testing. Psychol Rev 94:211–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kong A, Barnett GO, Mosteller F, Youtz C (1986) How medical professionals evaluate expressions of probability. N Engl J Med 315:740–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kunda Z (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol Bull 180:480–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Hmielowski JD (2011) Politics & global warming: democrats, republicans, independents, and the tea party. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. Retrieved from http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/PoliticsGlobalWarming2011.pdf
  35. Leiserowitz A, Smith N (2010) Knowledge of climate change across global warming’s six Americas. Yale University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change CommunicationGoogle Scholar
  36. Leiserowitz A, Smith N, Marlon JR (2010) Americans’ knowledge of climate change. Yale University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. Retrieved from http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/ClimateChangeKnowledge2010.pdf
  37. Lipkus IM (2007) Communicating the uncertainty of harms and benefits of medical interventions. Med Decis Making 27:681–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mapes REA (1979) Verbal and numerical estimates of probability terms. J Gen Intern Med 6:237Google Scholar
  39. Mastrandea MD, Field CB, Stocker TF, Edenhofer O, Rbi KL, Frame DJ, Held H, Kreogler E, Mach KJ, Matschoss PR, Plattner GK, Yohee GW, Zwiers FW (2010) Guidance note for lead authors of the IPCC fifth assessment report on consistent treatment of uncertainties. Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (Available at http://www.ipcc.ch)
  40. Merz JF, Druzdzel MJ, Mazur DJ (1991) Verbal expressions of probability in informed consent litigation. J Med Decis Making 11:273–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mosteller F, Youtz C (1990) Quantifying probabilistic expressions. Stat Sci 5:2–16Google Scholar
  42. Mullet E, Rivet I (1991) Comprehension of verbal probability expressions in children and adolescents. Lang Comm 11:217–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nakao M, Axelrod S (1983) Numbers are better than words: verbal specifications of frequency have no place in medicine. Am J Med 74:1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nickerson RS (1998) Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev Gen Psychol 2:175–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nobelprize.org (2008) The Nobel peace prize 2007. Retrieved November 2007 from http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/press.html
  46. Olson MJ, Budescu DV (1997) Patterns of preference for numerical and verbal probabilities. J Behav Decis Mak 10:117–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Patt AG, Schrag DP (2003) Using specific language to describe risk and probability. Clim Chang 61:17–30. doi:10.1023/A:1026314523443 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pepper S, Prytulak LS (1974) Sometimes frequently means seldom: context effects in the interpretation of quantitative expressions. J Res Personal 8:95–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Peters E, Västfjäll D, Slovic P, Mertz CK, Mazzocco K, Dickert S (2006) Numeracy and decision making. Psychol Sci 17:407–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pew Research Center for for the People and the Press (2009) Scientific achievements less prominent than a decade ago: public praise science; Scientists fault public, media. Retrieved Novermber 2009 from http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/528.pdf
  51. Piercey MD (2009) Motivated reasoning and verbal vs. numerical probability assessment: evidence from an accounting context. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 108:330–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pyszcynski T, Greenberg J (1987) Toward an integration of cognitive and motivational perspectives on social inferences: a biased hypothesis testing model. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic Press, New York, pp 297–340Google Scholar
  53. Reagan R, Mosteller F, Youtz C (1989) Quantitative meanings of verbal probability expressions. J Appl Psychol 74:433–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Reyna VF, Brainerd CJ (2007) The importance of mathematics in health and human judgment: numeracy, risk communication, and medical decision making. Learn Individ Differ 17:147–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Smithson M, Budescu DV, Broomell SB, Por H (2011) Never say “Not:” impact of negative wording in probability phrases on imprecise probability judgments. Presented at 7th International Symposium on Imprecise Probability: Theories and Applications, Innsbruck, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  56. Sterman JD (2011) Communicating climate change risks in a skeptical world. Climatic Change. In pressGoogle Scholar
  57. Sutherland HJ, Lockwood GA, Tritchler DL, Sem F (1991) Communicating probabilistic information to cancer patients: is there “noise” on the line? Soc Sci Med 32:725–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Teigen KH, Brun W (1999) The directionality of verbal probability expressions: effects on decisions, predictions and probabilistic reasoning. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 80:155–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wallsten TS, Budescu DV (1995) A review of human linguistic probability processing: general principles and empirical evidence. Knowl Eng Rev 10:43–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wallsten TS, Budescu DV, Zwick R, Kemp SM (1993) Preferences and reasons for communicating probabilistic information in numerical or verbal terms. Bull Psychon Soc 31:135–138Google Scholar
  61. Wallsten TS, Fillenbaum S, Cox JA (1986) Base rate effects on the interpretations of probability and frequency expressions. J Mem Lang 25:571–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Weber EU, Hilton DJ (1990) Contextual effects in the interpretations of probability words: perceived base rate and severity of events. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 16:781–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Witteman C, Renooij S (2003) Evaluation of a verbal–numerical probability scale. Int J Approx Reason 33:117–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Witteman C, Renooij S, Koele PM (2007) Medicine in words and numbers: a cross-sectional survey comparing probability assessment scales. BMC Med Informat Decis Making 7Google Scholar
  65. Zwick R, Wallsten TS (1989) Combining stochastic uncertainty and linguistic inexactness: theory and experimental evaluation of four fuzzy probability models. Int J Man Mach Stud 30:69–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • David V. Budescu
    • 1
  • Han-Hui Por
    • 1
  • Stephen B. Broomell
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyFordham UniversityBronxUSA
  2. 2.Department of Social and Decision SciencesCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  3. 3.College of Information Sciences and TechnologyPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations