CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 291Climate Change Communication and PerceptionRisk Perception and ManagementAcademic Publishing and Open Access

A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science communication

Open access
Gustafson, Abel, Rice, Ronald E.·2020·Public Understanding of Science
DOI 10.1177/0963662520942122
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Uncertainty is inherent to science and science communication. However, the evidence appears mixed regarding whether portraying uncertainty in science communication has positive or negative effects. We review a diverse range of experimental literature ( k = 48; from 40 searches and 8000 retrievals), summarize the extant findings, and observe how the effects vary across four different types of communicated uncertainty ( deficient, technical, scientific, and consensus uncertainty). The results indicate that most findings of negative effects (such as reduced credibility and beliefs) are from experiments that operationalized uncertainty as disagreement or conflict in science ( consensus uncertainty). In this review, consensus uncertainty was never found to have positive effects. In contrast, uncertainty in the form of quantified error ranges and probabilities ( technical uncertainty) in these studies has had only positive or null effects, not negative effects. We also highlight frequent moderators of the effects of uncertainty, such as prior beliefs and worldviews.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This systematic review synthesizes 48 papers containing 68 experiments and 38,947 participants on how portrayals of uncertainty in public science communication affect audience beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. It finds that effects depend strongly on the type of uncertainty: consensus/conflict uncertainty is consistently negative, technical quantified uncertainty is positive or null, deficient uncertainty is mixed, and scientific uncertainty is rarely studied.

Key findings

  • Across 48 journal articles/book chapters and 68 experiments with 38,947 total participants, uncertainty portrayals showed negative, positive, and null effects depending on how uncertainty was operationalized.
  • Consensus uncertainty—expert disagreement, controversy, or conflicting evidence—was most clearly associated with negative main effects; the review found no instance of consensus uncertainty producing positive main effects.
  • Technical uncertainty—quantified error ranges, probabilities, or confidence intervals—showed no negative effects and instead had positive or null effects. Deficient uncertainty had mixed effects, while scientific uncertainty had mixed but tentative effects because it was studied infrequently.
  • Effects were often conditional on prior worldviews or topic opinions, trust in science/scientists, beliefs about uncertainty’s role in science, and topic. For example, expert consensus increased policy support only among people with high trust in scientists and decreased it among those with low trust; technical uncertainty lowered perceived risk relative to consensus uncertainty only among those high in deference to science.

Methods

  • Systematic review of experiments that manipulated uncertainty in a public-facing science message and compared outcomes with a no-uncertainty control, measuring beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors. Excluded non-experiments, private/interpersonal communication, comprehension outcomes, multi-message designs, and visual uncertainty depictions.
  • Searches used Google Scholar with 40 searches (eight uncertainty-related terms crossed with five science-communication variants), examining the first 200 results per search for 8,000 retrievals, plus reference and citation chasing. Final set: 48 journal articles/book chapters, 68 experiments, 38,947 participants.
  • Studies were coded by four uncertainty types (deficient, technical, consensus, scientific), sample type, topic, main effects, and conditional effects. The first author coded manifest and latent content, consulting the second author to resolve ambiguities.

Limitations

  • Stated: publication bias may affect the literature; many included studies used very small samples that may not replicate; inclusion criteria and search methods may have missed relevant experiments, including work in other fields or with different terminology; alternative uncertainty typologies or broader inclusion criteria could reveal different patterns; and heterogeneity across topics, stimuli, outcomes, samples, and years may confound conclusions.
  • Evident from the text: the review is a narrative synthesis rather than a quantitative meta-analysis, so effect sizes are not pooled; coding was primarily done by the first author with consultation rather than independent double-coding, and no formal inter-coder reliability statistic is reported.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0963662520942122

Cites

119 of 119 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

10 of 75 cited sources checked · 4 supported · 1 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation
    § A Review of the Effects of Uncertainty in Public Science Communication

    Journalists sometimes misrepresent the uncertainties of science, for example, by presenting complex or preliminary information as being more certain than it truly is.

    “journalists sometimes do misrepresent the uncertainties of science, for example, by presenting complex or preliminary information as being more certain than it truly is (Brechman, Lee, and Cappella, 2009;Jensen, 2008;Lai, Lane, and Ruttenberg, 2009;Retzbach and Maier, 2015)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Brechman, Lee, and Cappella, 2009 source
    • cites Jensen, 2008 source
    • cites Lai, Lane, and Ruttenberg, 2009

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Premisecitation
    § A Review of the Effects of Uncertainty in Public Science Communication

    The quality and accuracy of caveats in journalism coverage vary relative to the type, source, and subject of uncertainty.

    “varying in quality and accuracy relative to the type, source, and subject of uncertainty (Rice, Gustafson, and Hoffman, 2018)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rice, Gustafson, and Hoffman, 2018 source
  • Premisecitation
    § Uncertainty as Framing

    Content analyses of public-facing science communication show that scientists and journalists frequently qualify their descriptions of scientific findings with portrayals of uncertainty.

    “Content analyses of public-facing science communication show that scientists and journalists frequently qualify their descriptions of scientific findings with portrayals of uncertainty (e.g., Rice et al., 2018;Ruhrmann, Guenther, and Kessler, 2015)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Rice et al., 2018 source

      Section 6.1 (page not provided) says uncertainty portrayals were frequent in mainstream climate-change print journalism. But it says the vast majority involved non-scientist sources and topics without established scientific consensus, so it does not support the broader claim that scientists and journalists frequently qualify descriptions of scientific findings. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Ruhrmann, Guenther, and Kessler, 2015

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Premisecitation
    § Uncertainty as Framing

    Communicating uncertainty has been identified by scholars as a type of framing in science communication.

    “communicating uncertainty has been identified by scholars as a type of framing in science communication (Gustafson and Rice, 2019;Rice et al., 2018;Ruhrmann et al., 2015;Simis, 2013).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Gustafson and Rice, 2019 source
    • cites Rice et al., 2018 source
    • cites Ruhrmann et al., 2015

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Premisecitation
    § Uncertainty Types

    Prior research has identified the four uncertainty types in real-world public science communication.

    “prior research has identified these types in real-world public science communication (Antilla, 2005;Rice et al., 2018;Zehr, 2000).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Antilla, 2005 source
    • cites Rice et al., 2018 source

      Section 5.1.1 identifies deficient and technical uncertainty in sampled climate-change news articles, supporting the claim that uncertainty types were identified in real-world public science communication. But Section 2.1 explicitly distinguishes two types of uncertainty, not four; it separately identifies three types of opinion divergence. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Zehr, 2000 source
  • May combine two claims. 37
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 35

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation
    § Perceived role of uncertainty in science.

    Gustafson and Rice found some negative effects of consensus uncertainty in one topic (climate change) but not in two others (GMO food labeling and machinery hazards).

    “Gustafson and Rice (2019) found some negative effects of consensus uncertainty in one topic (climate change) but not in two others (GMO food labeling and machinery hazards).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gustafson and Rice, 2019 source

      The Summary reports small negative effects of consensus uncertainty in both the climate change (CC) and vibrating machinery (VM) conditions, but not the GMO condition. The Discussion likewise reports significantly lower claim belief for both climate change and machinery, contrary to the claim that machinery showed no negative effect. (LLM, conf=0.92)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § A Review of the Effects of Uncertainty in Public Science Communication

    Scientific press releases often include caveats, and these lead to more caveats in the subsequent journalism coverage.

    “Scientific press releases often include caveats, and these lead to more caveats in the subsequent journalism coverage (Sumner et al., 2016)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sumner et al., 2016 source

      The Results section reports that caveats appeared in only 14–15% of press releases, so describing them as 'often' included overstates their frequency. It also reports substantially higher odds of caveats appearing in news when the press release contained one. The Discussion cautions that this observational study cannot establish that press-release caveats caused the increase. (LLM, conf=0.89)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation
    § Effects by Direction: Positive, Negative, and Null

    A sequence of several experiments by van der Bles and colleagues concluded that verbal (but not numerical) expressions of uncertainty slightly reduced participants' own levels of certainty as well as their trust in the message source.

    “A sequence of several experiments by van der Bles and colleagues (2020) concluded that verbal (but not numerical) expressions of uncertainty slightly reduced participants' own levels of certainty as well as their trust in the message source.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites van der Bles et al., 2020 source

      The Results’ internal metaanalysis reports a small reduction in trust in the source for verbal uncertainty, but not numerical uncertainty. It also reports that both verbal and numerical expressions increased participants’ perceived uncertainty about the numbers. Thus the ‘but not numerical’ distinction does not hold for certainty; the measured outcome was perceived certainty of the numbers, rather than participants’ own general level of certainty. Our copy provides no page number for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation
    § Null effects.

    Gustafson and Rice tested the effects of four uncertainty types across three different science topics, finding that three of the four uncertainty types had no significant effects on beliefs, risk perceptions, or behavioral intentions.

    “Gustafson and Rice (2019) tested the effects of four uncertainty types across three different science topics, finding that three of the four uncertainty types had no significant effects on beliefs, risk perceptions, or behavioral intentions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gustafson and Rice, 2019 source

      The Abstract and Discussion report that four uncertainty frames were tested across three science topics and that scientific, technical, and deficient uncertainty showed no pattern of significant effects relative to the control. But the paper identifies its measured outcomes as claim belief, credibility, and behavioral intention—not risk perceptions. The claim substitutes risk perceptions for credibility. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § Uncertainty about the Effects of Uncertainty

    Nearly 20 years later, there is much more empirical evidence but still a great deal of uncertainty about the effects of uncertainty.

    “Nearly 20 years later, there is much more empirical evidence but still a great deal of uncertainty about the effects of uncertainty.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given
    § A Review of the Effects of Uncertainty in Public Science Communication

    The extant experiments testing the effects of uncertainty vary widely in design, research fields, and results, resulting in considerable inconsistency.

    “However, the extant experiments testing the effects of uncertainty vary widely in design, research fields, and results, resulting in considerable inconsistency.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation
    § Effects by Uncertainty Types

    Technical uncertainty has often had positive main effects, positive effects moderated by individual-level trait variables, and null effects.

    “technical uncertainty has often had positive main effects (1,4,12,30,42,45,46), positive effects moderated by individual-level trait variables, and null effects.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation
    § Effects by Uncertainty Types

    Deficient uncertainty has been found to have a diverse mix of effects, including positive main effects, negative main effects, null effects, and effects moderated by individual-level trait variables.

    “Deficient uncertainty has been found to have a diverse mix of effects, including positive main effects (5, 9, 13, 18, 27, 42), negative main effects (18,23,34,36,41,43,48), null effects, and effects moderated by individual-level trait variables.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation
    § Positive effects.

    Clarke et al. found that a hedging statement increased beliefs in scientists' certainty about the vaccine-autism controversy and decreased beliefs of scientific discord.

    “Clarke et al. (2015) found that a hedging statement (although accompanied by information about the true weight of evidence) increased beliefs in scientists' certainty about the vaccine-autism controversy and decreased beliefs of scientific discord.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Clarke et al., 2015 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation
    § Effects by Direction: Positive, Negative, and Null

    Portrayals of uncertainty about vaccine safety can cause individuals to have greater doubts about vaccine safety and to perceive greater discord among scientists.

    “portrayals of uncertainty about vaccine safety can cause individuals to have greater doubts about vaccine safety and to perceive greater discord among scientists (Dixon and Clarke, 2013;Dixon et al., 2015).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Dixon and Clarke, 2013 source
    • cites Dixon et al., 2015 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Coding

    The search process resulted in a final set of 48 journal articles and book chapters, containing 68 separate experiments conducted on a total combined set of 38,947 participants.

    “The search process resulted in a final set of 48 journal articles and book chapters, containing 68 separate experiments conducted on a total combined set of 38,947 participants.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation
    § Effects by Direction: Positive, Negative, and Null

    Participants exposed to contradictory research findings published in health news reported lower favorability ratings toward health research, lower perceived credibility of the research, and lower behavioral intentions toward healthy behavior.

    “participants exposed to contradictory research findings published in health news reported lower favorability ratings toward health research, lower perceived credibility of the research, and lower behavioral intentions toward healthy behavior (Chang, 2015).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chang, 2015 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation
    § Effects by Uncertainty Types

    Scientific uncertainty has been found to have some positive main effects, one instance of null effects, and one instance of negative effects.

    “While not studied frequently, scientific uncertainty has been found to have some positive main effects (2, 42), one instance of null effects (44), and one instance of negative effects (41).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given
    § Discussion Summary of Results

    The effects of portraying deficient uncertainty are mixed, with several experiments finding positive effects and others negative effects.

    “The effects of portraying deficient uncertainty are mixed, with several experiments finding positive effects and others negative effects.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § Discussion Summary of Results

    The effects of portraying scientific uncertainty are mixed but tentative because this type of uncertainty has rarely been studied.

    “The effects of portraying scientific uncertainty are mixed but tentative because this type of uncertainty has rarely been studied.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given
    § Discussion Summary of Results

    Portrayals of technical uncertainty did not show negative effects; they showed only positive or null effects.

    “In stark contrast, portrayals of technical uncertainty did not show negative effects-only positive or null effects.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation
    § Moderating or Conditional Variables in the Effects of Uncertainty

    Nan and Daily found that portrayals of scientific disagreement regarding vaccine safety resulted in more supportive attitudes for individuals with prior support for vaccines, but less supportive attitudes for those with prior opposition to vaccines.

    “One example is a study (Nan and Daily, 2015) finding that portrayals of scientific disagreement regarding vaccine safety resulted in more supportive attitudes for individuals with prior support for vaccines, but less supportive attitudes for those with prior opposition to vaccines.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Nan and Daily, 2015 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation
    § Moderating or Conditional Variables in the Effects of Uncertainty

    Aklin and Urpelainen manipulated the degree of expert consensus portrayed about environmental policy and found that increases in consensus resulted in stronger policy support, but only for people who already had high trust in scientists.

    “Aklin and Urpelainen (2014) manipulated the degree of expert consensus (e.g., 60%, 80%, 98%) that was portrayed about environmental policy, and found that increases in consensus (i.e., more agreement) resulted in stronger policy support-but only for people who already had high trust in scientists.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Aklin and Urpelainen, 2014 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation
    § Moderating or Conditional Variables in the Effects of Uncertainty

    Binder and colleagues found that portrayals of technical uncertainty about nanotechnology resulted in lower perceived risk than portrayals of consensus uncertainty, but only for individuals who reported high deference to science.

    “Binder and colleagues (2016) found that portrayals of technical uncertainty about nanotechnology resulted in lower perceived risk than portrayals of consensus uncertainty, but only for individuals who reported high deference to science.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Binder et al., 2016 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § Moderating or Conditional Variables in the Effects of Uncertainty

    For those with low trust, portrayals of higher consensus decreased policy support-a boomerang effect-possibly because it confirmed suspicions of systemic collusion.

    “For those with low trust, the portrayals of higher consensus decreased policy support-a boomerang effect-possibly because it confirmed suspicions of systemic collusion.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingreasoning
    § Moderating or Conditional Variables in the Effects of Uncertainty

    Several interactions noted in Table 2 follow similar patterns of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning.

    “Several interactions noted in Table 2 follow similar patterns of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § A Review of the Effects of Uncertainty in Public Science Communication

    Misrepresenting uncertainty is sometimes done out of fear of inviting adverse effects such as increased motivated skepticism and reduced credibility perceptions.

    “and sometimes out of fear of inviting adverse effects such as increased motivated skepticism and reduced credibility perceptions (Stocking, 1999)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Stocking, 1999

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Uncertainty about the Effects of Uncertainty

    Evidence from the risk communication literature indicates that portrayals of uncertainty about scientific claims of threat imminence and threat severity can enhance trust in the source and thereby increase the desired behavioral responses toward risk mitigation.

    “Evidence from the risk communication literature indicates that portrayals of uncertainty about scientific claims of threat imminence and threat severity can enhance trust in the source and thereby increase the desired behavioral responses toward risk mitigation (Frewer et al., 2002;Habicht, 1992;Johnson and Slovic, 1995;Slovic, Fischoff, and Lichenstein, 1984).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Frewer et al., 2002 source
    • cites Habicht, 1992

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Johnson and Slovic, 1995 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Framing

    Frames can serve both as a persuasion technique and as an information accessibility mechanism because they influence responses to a message by making related information or beliefs more available, accessible, or applicable.

    “frames can serve both as a persuasion technique and as an information accessibility mechanism (Shulman and Sweitzer, 2018) because they influence responses to a message by making related information or beliefs more available, accessible, or applicable (Chong and Druckman, 2007).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Shulman and Sweitzer, 2018 source
    • cites Chong and Druckman, 2007 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § A Review of the Effects of Uncertainty in Public Science Communication

    Science can disprove hypotheses but can only provisionally support hypotheses.

    “science can disprove hypotheses but can only provisionally support hypotheses (Popper, 1959)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Popper, 1959 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Premisecitation
    § A Review of the Effects of Uncertainty in Public Science Communication

    It is important to convey the uncertainties of science in public-facing science communication so that the public is not misled and can make informed decisions.

    “Scholars argue it is important to convey the uncertainties of science in public-facing science communication (e.g., journalism, media, public campaigns) so that the public is not misled and can make informed decisions (Campbell, 2011;Stocking, 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Campbell, 2011 source
    • cites Stocking, 2010 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § A Review of the Effects of Uncertainty in Public Science Communication

    Science moves in paradigmatic cycles in which discoveries can spark a rejection of longstanding assumptions while also introducing new uncertainties.

    “science moves in paradigmatic cycles in which discoveries can spark a rejection of longstanding assumptions while also introducing new uncertainties (Kuhn, 1970)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kuhn, 1970

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Uncertainty about the Effects of Uncertainty

    Uncertainty is often difficult to understand and ambiguity can cause confusion or other negative reactions.

    “uncertainty is often difficult to understand and ambiguity can cause confusion or other negative reactions (Han, Moser, and Klein, 2007;Tversky and Shafir, 1992)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Han, Moser, and Klein, 2007 source
    • cites Tversky and Shafir, 1992 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Uncertainty about the Effects of Uncertainty

    Some scholars have encouraged scientists to more openly include uncertainties when communicating to the public.

    “some scholars have encouraged scientists to more openly include uncertainties when communicating to the public (Campbell, 2011;Leshner, 2003;Parascandola, 2000;Stocking, 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Campbell, 2011 source
    • cites Leshner, 2003 source
    • cites Parascandola, 2000

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § A Review of the Effects of Uncertainty in Public Science Communication

    The competitive, iterative, and unending nature of scientific progress necessarily and usefully breeds conflicting theories and competing hypotheses.

    “the competitive, iterative, and unending nature of scientific progress necessarily and usefully breeds conflicting theories and competing hypotheses (Shanteau, 2000)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Shanteau, 2000

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § A Review of the Effects of Uncertainty in Public Science Communication

    Responsible science communication involves describing the current state of uncertainty in deliberate terms.

    “responsible science communication involves describing the current state of uncertainty in deliberate terms (Carpenter, 1995)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Carpenter, 1995

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Premisecitation
    § A Review of the Effects of Uncertainty in Public Science Communication

    Uncertainty is inherent to the nature of science and scientific knowledge.

    “Uncertainty is inherent to the nature of science and scientific knowledge.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Popper, 1959 source
    • cites Kuhn, 1970

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Framing

    Two fundamental message framing types are emphasis and equivalence.

    “Two fundamental message framing types are emphasis (highlighting a particular theme, interpretation, or aspects) and equivalence (using differently valenced or oriented content that is logically equal) (Cacciatore, Scheufele, and Iyenger, 2016).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Cacciatore, Scheufele, and Iyenger, 2016 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Uncertainty Types

    Making nuanced distinctions among distinct types of uncertainty is necessary for conceptual clarity, theoretical understanding, methodological consistency, and predicting audience responses.

    “Making nuanced distinctions among distinct types of uncertainty is necessary for conceptual clarity, theoretical understanding, methodological consistency, and predicting audience responses.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Methods Criteria for Inclusion

    The review included only studies that portrayed uncertainty as an experimental manipulation, comparing conditions with uncertainty messages to control messages.

    “To be included, a study must portray uncertainty as an experimental manipulation, such that levels of outcome variables are compared between the condition(s) with messages using uncertainty and the condition(s) using a control message (no uncertainty).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Search Procedure

    The reference-list and citation inspection step was repeated for each new inclusion until zero new inclusions remained.

    “This last step was repeated for each new inclusion until zero new inclusions remained.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Uncertainty Types

    Different types of uncertainty represent fundamentally distinct uses, meanings, interpretations, and effects.

    “different types of uncertainty represent fundamentally distinct uses, meanings, interpretations, and effects.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Scientific uncertainty.

    We can communicate uncertainty as an inherent feature of even the most confident scientific findings, because we do not know how future research, data, or theory will change how we view our current set of knowledge.

    “we can communicate uncertainty as an inherent feature of even the most confident scientific findings, because we do not know how future research, data, or theory will change how we view our current set of knowledge.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Uncertainty Types

    The typology connects root causes of uncertainty to their associated communicative expressions.

    “its ability to connect root causes of uncertainty to their associated communicative expressions”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Methods Criteria for Inclusion

    The review includes only studies using the context of public-facing mass communication and excludes private, interpersonal, and/or informal communication contexts.

    “this review includes only studies using the context of public-facing mass communication (e.g., journalism, scientific reports, PSAs, communication campaigns) and thus excludes private, interpersonal, and/or informal communication contexts.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Coding

    The first author coded the manifest and latent content and consulted with the second author to resolve any ambiguities.

    “The first author coded the manifest and latent content, and consulted with the second author to resolve any ambiguities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Search Procedure

    For each included item, its entire reference list and Google Scholar's list of subsequent works citing and cited by that study were inspected for additional studies that might fit the inclusion criteria.

    “Then, lastly, for each individual item that fit the inclusion criteria, its entire reference list and Google Scholar's entire list of subsequent works citing that study and cited by that study were inspected for additional studies that might also fit the inclusion criteria.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Deficient uncertainty.

    Many scientific claims are limited by measurement error, modeling approximations, and statistical assumptions.

    “Many scientific claims are limited by measurement error, modeling approximations, and statistical assumptions (Broomell and Kane, 2017).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Broomell and Kane, 2017 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Uncertainty Types

    A portrayal of controversy within the scientific community has different connotations and implications than a portrayal of an estimated confidence interval in a model projection.

    “a portrayal of controversy within the scientific community has different connotations and implications than a portrayal of an estimated confidence interval in a model projection.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Search Procedure

    For a relevant publication to have been overlooked, it would have had to be not included in the 8,000 search results, to have cited zero of the 48 included studies, and also to have been cited by zero of the 48 included studies.

    “Thus, for a relevant publication to have been overlooked (aside from human coder error), it would have had to be not included in the 8,000 search results, to have cited zero of the 48 included studies, and also to have been cited by zero of the 48 included studies.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Methods Criteria for Inclusion

    The review is exclusively interested in persuasive effects on beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors and excludes experiments that measured effects on correctness of message comprehension or interpretation.

    “The review is exclusively interested in persuasive effects on beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors (e.g., belief in the message, perceived credibility, behavioral intentions, risk perceptions), and thus we exclude experiments that instead measured effects on the correctness of message comprehension or interpretation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Methods Criteria for Inclusion

    Experiments were only included if the treatment message was about a science-related topic.

    “Experiments were only included if the treatment message was about a science-related topic (i.e., a claim about evidence or predictions portrayed as made by scientists specifically or science generally).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Framing

    Uncertainty portrayals can function as emphasis frames, by highlighting a specific set of meanings and associations, and thus shaping interpretations and responses.

    “Uncertainty portrayals can function as emphasis frames, by highlighting a specific set of meanings and associations, and thus shaping interpretations and responses.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Methods Criteria for Inclusion

    The review focuses exclusively on verbal and numerical depictions of uncertainty and excludes studies of the effects of visual depictions of uncertainty.

    “this review focuses exclusively on verbal and numerical depictions of uncertainty, and excludes studies of the effects of visual depictions of uncertainty.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Deficient uncertainty.

    Science communication often portrays uncertainty as either a range, as a probability, or as an estimated value with a confidence interval or error bars.

    “science communication often portrays uncertainty as either a range (e.g., 7-15cm), as a probability (e.g., a 65% chance), or as an estimated value with a confidence interval or error bars (e.g., Morton, Rabinovich, Marshall, and Bretschneider, 2011).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Morton, Rabinovich, Marshall, and Bretschneider, 2011 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Search Procedure

    For each of 40 separate searches, the review examined the first 200 items for peer-reviewed research that satisfied the inclusion criteria.

    “For each of these 40 separate searches, we examined the first 200 items for peer-reviewed research (e.g., journal articles, book chapters, conference papers) that satisfied the above inclusion criteria (8x5x200 = 8,000 results).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Methods Criteria for Inclusion

    The review excluded non-experimental designs such as focus groups and correlational surveys.

    “Non-experimental designs are excluded, such as focus groups and correlational surveys.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Uncertainty as Framing

    These varying forms of uncertainty portrayals in science communication are created by diverse forces, including good intentions such as journalistic ethical norms, intended or unconscious influences such as insufficient science literacy or training, malignant motives such as public disinformation campaigns, and the inescapable nature of uncertainty in science itself.

    “These varying forms of uncertainty portrayals in science communication are created by diverse forces, including good intentions such as journalistic ethical norms (Bennett, 1996;Boykoff and Boykoff, 2004), intended or unconscious influences such as insufficient science literacy or training, malignant motives such as public disinformation campaigns (Jacques, Dunlap, and Freeman, 2008;McCright and”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Bennett, 1996 source
    • cites Boykoff and Boykoff, 2004 source
    • cites Jacques, Dunlap, and Freeman, 2008 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Uncertainty Types

    The typology of four types of uncertainty portrayals is parsimonious.

    “We choose this typology because of its parsimony”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Perceived role of uncertainty in science.

    In another study, uncertainty about dioxin in sewage sludge diminished credibility, but uncertainty about the reintroduction of gray wolves to populated areas increased credibility.

    “In another study (excluded from the review's results per the criteria of uncertainty manipulations being contained in one message), uncertainty about dioxin in sewage sludge diminished credibility, but uncertainty about the reintroduction of gray wolves to populated areas increased credibility (Jensen and Hurley, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jensen and Hurley, 2012

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation
    § Perceived role of uncertainty in science.

    People may feel uncertainty about one topic is acceptable while similar uncertainty about a different topic is unacceptable.

    “In both studies, the authors invoke the theory of motivated information management (Afifi and Weiner, 2004) to argue that people may feel uncertainty about one topic is acceptable while similar uncertainty about a different topic is unacceptable.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Afifi and Weiner, 2004 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion Summary of Results

    People prefer ambiguity to conflict, which may lead them to view the ambiguities implied by technical, deficient, and scientific uncertainty more favorably than the conflict implied by consensus uncertainty.

    “Some evidence indicates that people prefer ambiguity to conflict (Smithson, 1999), which may lead them to view the ambiguities implied by technical, deficient, and scientific uncertainty more favorably than the conflict implied by consensus uncertainty.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Smithson, 1999 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion Summary of Results

    Consensus uncertainty is the only uncertainty type that provides direct evidence contrary to the claim, by implying that there are experts or evidence that take a contrary position.

    “consensus uncertainty is the only uncertainty type that provides direct evidence contrary to the claim, by implying that there are experts or evidence that take a contrary position.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § Discussion Summary of Results

    The frequency of conditional effects found in the experimental literature is in large part determined by researchers' interests in conditional effects, and does not necessarily reflect the frequency, nature, or magnitude of conditional effects in the real world.

    “However, it is important to note that the frequency of conditional effects found in the experimental literature is in large part determined by researchers' interests in conditional effects, and does not necessarily reflect the frequency, nature, or magnitude of conditional effects in the real world.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § Limitations and Future Research

    Responses to uncertainty are sensitive to contextual and individual characteristics.

    “This caveat is particularly important given the evidence showing that responses to uncertainty are sensitive to contextual and individual characteristics.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion Summary of Results

    Judgments are often made based on some weighted average of the opinions of experts, which suggests that portrayals of consensus uncertainty could affect judgments by influencing the perceived average of expert opinion.

    “judgments are often made based on some weighted average of the opinions of experts (Budescu, Rantilla, Yu, and Karelitz, 2003), which suggests that portrayals of consensus uncertainty could affect judgments by influencing the perceived average of expert opinion.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Budescu, Rantilla, Yu, and Karelitz, 2003 source
61 of 61

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Even when reporting findings on which there is relative agreement, scientists often describe a degree of uncertainty surrounding a parameter.

    “Even when reporting findings on which there is relative agreement, scientists often describe a degree of uncertainty surrounding a parameter.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Statistical science itself is an exercise in specifying uncertainty with precision by making estimations of variation and error.

    “Statistical science itself is an exercise in specifying uncertainty with precision by making estimations of variation and error.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Scientists frequently present findings as probabilities or as estimates couched in error ranges.

    “scientists frequently present findings as probabilities or as estimates couched in error ranges.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    All science is subject to the inescapable possibility that in the future, our current best understandings may change in ways that are currently unknown and possibly unknowable.

    “All science is subject to the inescapable possibility that in the future, our current best understandings may change in ways that are currently unknown and possibly unknowable.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Publication bias may affect the observations drawn from the current review.

    “One limitation to observations drawn from the current review is that of publication bias.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Very small samples are fertile ground for generating effects that do not replicate.

    “which are fertile ground for generating effects that do not replicate”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The inclusion criteria or search methods may have excluded experiments that could help shine light on the question of the effects of uncertainty.

    “Another relevant limitation is that the inclusion criteria or search methods may have excluded experiments that could help shine light on the question of the effects of uncertainty.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Different methods may have resulted in a slightly different set of studies.

    “Different methods may have resulted in a slightly different set of studies.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Relevant research might be siloed in other fields using very different terminology, and might neither cite nor be cited by the studies included here.

    “It is also possible that relevant research might be siloed in other fields using very different terminology, and might neither cite nor be cited by the studies included here.”
9 of 9

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?

  • Detrimental effects of uncertainty on trust were small and mostly limited to verbal but not numerical expressions of uncertainty.

    “Yet, such detrimental effects were small and mostly limited to verbal (e.g. hedges, i.e. words such as appear, seem, likely, might or could) but not numerical (e.g. numerical ranges of estimates) expressions of uncertainty (8, 9, 22).”

    From Expressions of uncertainty in online science communication hinder information diffusion (2024) · cites this paper as [8]

  • Several studies examined the impact of communicating uncertainty on trust in science and yielded mixed results.

    “While several studies examined the impact of communicating uncertainty on trust in science and yielded mixed results (8, 9)”

    From Expressions of uncertainty in online science communication hinder information diffusion (2024) · cites this paper as [8]

  • The possible implications of uncertainty for the dissemination of scientific findings remained unexplored prior to this research.

    “the possible implications of uncertainty for the dissemination of scientific findings remained unexplored so far.”

    From Expressions of uncertainty in online science communication hinder information diffusion (2024) · cites this paper as [8]

  • The negative effect of uncertainty on science credibility is primarily associated with verbal uncertainty, while numerical uncertainty does not erode science credibility.

    “The negative effect is primarily associated with “verbal uncertainty” (such as hedging), while numerical uncertainty (communicating ranges of estimates; also referred to as technical uncertainty) does not erode science credibility (8, 9).”

    From Expressions of uncertainty in online science communication hinder information diffusion (2024) · cites this paper as [8]

  • Some types of uncertainty expression (e.g., numerical or technical uncertainty) do not seem to bear the reputational costs of lower credibility.

    “As some types of uncertainty expression (e.g. numerical or technical uncertainty) do not seem to bear the reputational costs of lower credibility (8)”

    From Expressions of uncertainty in online science communication hinder information diffusion (2024) · cites this paper as [8]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Consensus uncertainty has a positive effect in Table 2

    Major

    The text says consensus uncertainty produced no positive main effects, but Table 2 reports a significant positive effect for a consensus-uncertainty treatment in row 7.

  • Technical uncertainty has a negative credibility effect in Table 2

    Major

    The review says technical uncertainty had no negative effects, but Table 2 reports a significant negative effect on expertise for a technical-uncertainty treatment. The paper defines expertise as a component of perceived credibility.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Carpenter RA, 1995, Environmental Professional, 17, 127
  2. Habicht FH, 1992, Guidance on Risk Characterization for Risk Managers and Risk Assessors
  3. Kuha M, 2009, Language & Ecology, 2, 1
  4. Parascandola M, 2000, Research Practitioner, 1, 1
  5. Stocking SH, 1999, Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science, 23
  6. Winter S, 2015, Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 34, 251

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gustafson, A., & Rice, R. E.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • University of California, USA
Corresponding author
Gustafson, Abel
ORCID
Venue
Public Understanding of Science
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2020-07-17
Volume
29
Issue
6
Pages
614-633
ISSN
  • 0963-6625 (ISSN-L)
  • 1361-6609
DOI
10.1177/0963662520942122
OpenAlex
W3042498646
Cited by
291
References
111
Citations by year
2026: 79 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 4
FWCI
42.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Public Understanding of Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Arthur N. Rupe endowment
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
uncertainty communication, science communication, technological uncertainty, scientific uncertainty, credibility, public beliefs, prior beliefs, worldview, probability communication
MeSH terms
Communication, Dissent and Disputes, 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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-11.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-11.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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