Communicating scientific uncertainty
Open accessAbstract
All science has uncertainty. Unless that uncertainty is communicated effectively, decision makers may put too much or too little faith in it. The information that needs to be communicated depends on the decisions that people face. Are they (i) looking for a signal (e.g., whether to evacuate before a hurricane), (ii) choosing among fixed options (e.g., which medical treatment is best), or (iii) learning to create options (e.g., how to regulate nanotechnology)? We examine these three classes of decisions in terms of how to characterize, assess, and convey the uncertainties relevant to each. We then offer a protocol for summarizing the many possible sources of uncertainty in standard terms, designed to impose a minimal burden on scientists, while gradually educating those whose decisions depend on their work. Its goals are better decisions, better science, and better support for science.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The question of how much to trust model output corresponds to prototypical tasks studied in the JDM literature: action threshold decision and multi-option choices.
“This question corresponds to prototypical tasksfoot_0 studied in the Judgment and Decision-Making (JDM) literature, i.e.,”
From Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty (2021) · cites this paper as [34]
Cites
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810 · see citing works
Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9 · Cited by 9,984 · cited 2× · see citing works
“The availability heuristic can produce good estimates when people receive and recall a representative sample of examples (38).”
BackgroundOn the psychology of prediction.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0034747 · Cited by 6,202 · cited 1× · see citing works
“, small samples, weak measurement) (39).”
Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies
Higgins, J. P., & Altman, D. G. (2008) · Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions · doi:10.1002/9780470712184.ch8 · Cited by 3,396 · see citing works
Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement
Siu, A. L., & on behalf of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2016) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m15-2886 · Cited by 2,094 · see citing works
The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: A review.
Cohen, J. (1962) · The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0045186 · Cited by 1,824 · see citing works
Outcome Bias in Decision Evaluation
Baron, J., & Hershey, J. C. (1988) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.569 · Cited by 873 · see citing works
Philosophy and the practice of Bayesian statistics
Gelman, A., & Shalizi, C. R. (2013) · British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8317.2011.02037.x · Cited by 825 · see citing works
Budescu, D. V., Broomell, S., & Por, H.-H. (2009) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02284.x · Cited by 402 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The effects of communicating uncertainty on public trust in facts and numbers
van der Bles, A. M., van der Linden, S., Freeman, A. L. J., & Spiegelhalter, D. J. (2020) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1913678117 · Cited by 348 · see citing works
On the future of transportation in an era of automated and autonomous vehicles
Hancock, P. A., Nourbakhsh, I., & Stewart, J. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1805770115 · Cited by 312 · see citing works
Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty
Bhatt, U., Antorán, J., Zhang, Y., Liao, Q. V., Sattigeri, P., Fogliato, R., Melançon, G., Krishnan, R., Stanley, J., Tickoo, O., et al. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1145/3461702.3462571 · Cited by 225 · see citing works
Communicating uncertainty in policy analysis
Manski, C. F. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1722389115 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Public perception and communication of scientific uncertainty.
Broomell, S. B., & Kane, P. B. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/xge0000260 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Social perception of systemic risks
Schweizer, P., Goble, R., & Renn, O. (2022) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.13831 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Empirical prediction intervals improve energy forecasting
Kaack, L. H., Apt, J., Morgan, M. G., & McSharry, P. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1619938114 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
- Authors
- Fischhoff, B., & Davis, A. L.
- Affiliations
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Departments of aEngineering and Public Policy and
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2014-09-15
- Volume
- 111
- Issue
- supplement_4
- Pages
- 13664-13671
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC4183175
- OpenAlex
- W2046809321
- Cited by
- 312
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 55 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 47.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Keywords
- scientific uncertainty, uncertainty communication, decision-making, risk communication, nanotechnology regulation, uncertainty characterization, uncertainty analysis, science-policy interface
- MeSH terms
- Communication, Decision Making, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Science, Information Dissemination, Uncertainty
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
