Climatic Change

, Volume 61, Issue 1–2, pp 17–30 | Cite as

Using Specific Language to Describe Risk and Probability

  • Anthony G. Patt
  • Daniel P. Schrag


Good assessment of environmental issues, such as climate change, requires effective communication of the degree of uncertainty associated with numerous possible outcomes. One strategy that accomplishes this, while responding to people's difficulty understanding numeric probability estimates, is the use of specific language to describe probability ranges. This is the strategy adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in their Third Assessment Report. There is a problem with this strategy, however, in that it uses words differently from the way lay readers of the assessment typically do. An experiment conducted with undergraduate science students confirms this. The IPCC strategy could result in miscommunication, leading readers to under-estimate the probability of high-magnitude possible outcomes.


Climate Change Numeric Probability Environmental Issue Assessment Report Probability Estimate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Breyer, S.: 1993, Breaking the Vicious Circle: Toward Effective Risk Regulation, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  2. Brun, W. and Teigen, K. H.: 1988, 'Verbal Probabilities: Ambiguous, Context-Dependent, or Both?', Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 41, 390.Google Scholar
  3. Covello, V.: 1990, 'Risk Comparisons and Risk Communication: Issues and Problems in Comparing Health and Environmental Risks', in Kasperson and Stallen (eds.), Communicating Risks to the Public: International Perspectives, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 79–124.Google Scholar
  4. Fischhoff, B.: 1996, 'Public Values in Risk Research', Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 545, 75.Google Scholar
  5. Houghton, J. T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D. J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P. J., and Xiaosu, D. (eds.): 2002, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge U.K.Google Scholar
  6. Irwin, A. and Wynne, B. (eds.): 1996, Misunderstanding Science?, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge U.K.Google Scholar
  7. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A.: 1979, 'Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk', Econometrica 47, 263.Google Scholar
  8. Kammen, D., Shlyakhter, A., and Wilson, R.: 1994, 'What is the Risk of the Impossible?', Journal of the Franklin Institute 331A, 97.Google Scholar
  9. Leiss, W.: 1996, 'Three Phases in the Evolution of Risk Communication Practice', Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 545, 85.Google Scholar
  10. Morgan, M. G. and Keith, D. W.: 1995, 'Subjective Judgments by Climate Experts', Environmental Science and Technology 29, 468A.Google Scholar
  11. Moss, R. H. and Schneider, S. H.: 2000, 'Uncertainties in the IPCC TAR: Recommendations to Lead Authors for more Consistent Assessment and Reporting', in Pachauri, R., Taniguchi, T., and Tanaka, K. (eds.), IPCC Supporting Material, Guidance Papers on the Cross Cutting Issues of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC, pp. 33–51.Google Scholar
  12. Patt, A.: 1999, 'Assessing Extreme Outcomes: The Strategic Treatment of Low Probability Impacts in Scientific Assessment', Risk Decision and Policy 4, 1.Google Scholar
  13. Patt, A. and Gwata, C.: 2002, 'Effective Seasonal Climate Forecast Applications: Examining Constraints for Subsistence, Farmers in Zimbabwe', Global Environ. Change 12, 185.Google Scholar
  14. Patt, A. and Zeckhauser, R.: 2002, 'Behavioral Perceptions and Policies toward the Environment', in Gowda, R. and Fox, J. (eds.), Judgments, Decisions, and Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge U.K., pp. 265–302.Google Scholar
  15. Pinker, S.: 1997, How the Mind Works, Norton, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Van der Sluijs, J.: 1997, Anchoring Amid Uncertainty, on the Management of Uncertainties in Risk Assessment of Anthropogenic Climate Change, Ludy Feyen, Leiden, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  17. Wallsten, T. S., Fillenbaum, S., and Cox, J. A.: 1986, 'Base Rate Effects on the Interpretation of Probability and Frequency Expressions', Journal of Memory and Language 25, 571.Google Scholar
  18. Weber, E. U.: 1994, 'From Subjective Probabilities to Decision Weights: The Effect of Asymmetric Loss Functions on the Evaluation of Uncertain Outcomes and Events', Psychological Bulletin 115, 228.Google Scholar
  19. Weber, E. U. and Hilton, D. J.: 1990, 'Contextual Effects in the Interpretations of Probability Words: Perceived Bas Rate and Severity of Events', Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 16, 781.Google Scholar
  20. Windschitl, P. D. and Weber, E. U.: 1999, 'The Interpretation of “Likely” Depends on the Context, but “70%” is 70%–right? The Influence of Associative Processes on Perceived Certainty', Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 25, 1514.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anthony G. Patt
    • 1
  • Daniel P. Schrag
    • 2
  1. 1.Boston University and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact ResearchPotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Laboratory for Geochemical Oceanography, Department of Earth and Planetary SciencesHarvard UniversityCambridgeU.S.A

Personalised recommendations