Cited by 84Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsRisk Perception and ManagementData Visualization and Analytics

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

Dieckmann, Nathan F., Gregory, Robin, Peters, Ellen, Hartman, Robert·2017·Risk Analysis

Abstract

In this article, we consider a novel criterion for evaluating representations of uncertainty ranges, namely, the extent to which a representation enhances motivated reasoning. In two studies, we show that perceptions of the distribution underlying ambiguous numerical ranges are affected by the motivations and worldviews of end users. This motivated reasoning effect remained after controlling for objective numeracy and fluid intelligence but was attenuated when the correct interpretation was made clear. We suggest that analysts and communicators explicitly consider the potential for motivated evaluation when evaluating uncertainty displays.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/risa.12639

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • In the contexts of climate change and gun control, people tend to apply the most worldview-consistent interpretation of technical uncertainty.

    “in the contexts of climate change and gun control, people tend to apply the most worldview-consistent interpretation of technical uncertainty (Dieckmann, Gregory, Peters, and Hartman, 2017).”

    From A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science communication (2020) · cites this paper as Dieckmann, Gregory, Peters, and Hartman, 2017

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dieckmann, N. F., Gregory, R., Peters, E., & Hartman, R.
Affiliations
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • Decision Research (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • Mitre (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Dieckmann, Nathan F.
Venue
Risk Analysis
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-09-26
Volume
37
Issue
3
Pages
471-486
ISSN
  • 0272-4332 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-6924
OpenAlex
W2527361991
Cited by
84
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2015: 1
FWCI
3.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Risk Analysis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (0925008, 1231231)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Data Visualization and Analytics
Keywords
motivated reasoning, uncertainty ranges, numerical range, ambiguity, uncertainty communication, numeracy, fluid intelligence

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