The DOI matches its Crossref record; 120 of the 120 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 10 of the 75 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science communication
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
32 No full text of the sources · 19 Own interpretation · 16 Own result · 13 No basis given · 12 Not checked yet · 12 Own method · 6 Partly supported · 5 Sources not found · 1 Supported · 1 Supported so far · 1 Not supported · accuracy not yet measured
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“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)”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Brechman, Lee, and Cappella, 2009 source
The Discussion reports that news articles presented research data as clear-cut facts and identifies errors in treating speculation as fact. It also notes that press releases can contribute to these distortions, but that does not undermine the claim that journalists sometimes do so. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Jensen, 2008 source
- Not matchedcites Lai, Lane, and Ruttenberg, 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“varying in quality and accuracy relative to the type, source, and subject of uncertainty (Rice, Gustafson, and Hoffman, 2018)”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Rice, Gustafson, and Hoffman, 2018 source
Section 2.1.1.3 explains that the accuracy of reporting uncertainty depends on whether it portrays technical or deficient uncertainty. The Abstract and Section 6.1 assess portrayals by their sources and topics, finding that most uncertainty frames accurately concern non-scientist sources and subjects without scientific consensus. The claim is a fair paraphrase of those distinctions. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“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)”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Rice et al., 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
- Not matchedcites Ruhrmann, Guenther, and Kessler, 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Gustafson and Rice, 2019 source
The Abstract explicitly calls four ways of communicating uncertainty “uncertainty frame types.” The Responses to Uncertainty Frames section also discusses research on uncertainty frames in science communication, supporting the citing sentence’s characterization. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Supportedcites Rice et al., 2018 source
Section 1.2 explicitly describes communicating climate change through frames of uncertainty and calls uncertainty-framing research a cornerstone of science and environmental communication. Section 2.1 also treats uncertainty as a type of opinion framing. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not matchedcites Ruhrmann et al., 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“prior research has identified these types in real-world public science communication (Antilla, 2005;Rice et al., 2018;Zehr, 2000).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Antilla, 2005 source
- Partly supportedcites Rice et al., 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Zehr, 2000 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“some experiments show negative effects of portraying uncertainty on beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors in the context of science communication (see Results).”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this review, consensus uncertainty was never found to have positive effects.”
- Also stated in: § Effects by Uncertainty Types · plain
“Table 2 does not contain a single instance of consensus uncertainty resulting in positive main effects.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion Summary of Results · plain
“our review found no instances of portrayals of consensus uncertainty with positive effects.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Effects by Uncertainty Types · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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)”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“research has produced a seemingly inconsistent body of evidence regarding whether, when, and why portrayals of uncertainty in science have generally positive, negative, or null effects.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also highlight frequent moderators of the effects of uncertainty, such as prior beliefs and worldviews.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 37
- Probably not a substantial claim. 35
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Disputedcites Gustafson and Rice, 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Disputed
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Scientific press releases often include caveats, and these lead to more caveats in the subsequent journalism coverage (Sumner et al., 2016)”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Sumner et al., 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites van der Bles et al., 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Gustafson and Rice, 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nearly 20 years later, there is much more empirical evidence but still a great deal of uncertainty about the effects of uncertainty.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the extant experiments testing the effects of uncertainty vary widely in design, research fields, and results, resulting in considerable inconsistency.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Clarke et al., 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plainn = 38,947- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chang, 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effects of portraying deficient uncertainty are mixed, with several experiments finding positive effects and others negative effects.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effects of portraying scientific uncertainty are mixed but tentative because this type of uncertainty has rarely been studied.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In stark contrast, portrayals of technical uncertainty did not show negative effects-only positive or null effects.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Nan and Daily, 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Aklin and Urpelainen, 2014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Binder et al., 2016 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For those with low trust, the portrayals of higher consensus decreased policy support-a boomerang effect-possibly because it confirmed suspicions of systemic collusion.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Several interactions noted in Table 2 follow similar patterns of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“and sometimes out of fear of inviting adverse effects such as increased motivated skepticism and reduced credibility perceptions (Stocking, 1999)”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Stocking, 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“science can disprove hypotheses but can only provisionally support hypotheses (Popper, 1959)”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Popper, 1959 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“science moves in paradigmatic cycles in which discoveries can spark a rejection of longstanding assumptions while also introducing new uncertainties (Kuhn, 1970)”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kuhn, 1970
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“uncertainty is often difficult to understand and ambiguity can cause confusion or other negative reactions (Han, Moser, and Klein, 2007;Tversky and Shafir, 1992)”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“some scholars have encouraged scientists to more openly include uncertainties when communicating to the public (Campbell, 2011;Leshner, 2003;Parascandola, 2000;Stocking, 2010).”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“the competitive, iterative, and unending nature of scientific progress necessarily and usefully breeds conflicting theories and competing hypotheses (Shanteau, 2000)”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Shanteau, 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“responsible science communication involves describing the current state of uncertainty in deliberate terms (Carpenter, 1995)”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Carpenter, 1995
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Uncertainty is inherent to the nature of science and scientific knowledge.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Popper, 1959 source
- Not matchedcites Kuhn, 1970
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cacciatore, Scheufele, and Iyenger, 2016 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Making nuanced distinctions among distinct types of uncertainty is necessary for conceptual clarity, theoretical understanding, methodological consistency, and predicting audience responses.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This last step was repeated for each new inclusion until zero new inclusions remained.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“different types of uncertainty represent fundamentally distinct uses, meanings, interpretations, and effects.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“its ability to connect root causes of uncertainty to their associated communicative expressions”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The first author coded the manifest and latent content, and consulted with the second author to resolve any ambiguities.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Many scientific claims are limited by measurement error, modeling approximations, and statistical assumptions (Broomell and Kane, 2017).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Broomell and Kane, 2017 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Uncertainty portrayals can function as emphasis frames, by highlighting a specific set of meanings and associations, and thus shaping interpretations and responses.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“this review focuses exclusively on verbal and numerical depictions of uncertainty, and excludes studies of the effects of visual depictions of uncertainty.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Morton, Rabinovich, Marshall, and Bretschneider, 2011 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Non-experimental designs are excluded, such as focus groups and correlational surveys.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“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”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We choose this typology because of its parsimony”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“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).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Jensen and Hurley, 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Afifi and Weiner, 2004 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Smithson, 1999 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This caveat is particularly important given the evidence showing that responses to uncertainty are sensitive to contextual and individual characteristics.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Budescu, Rantilla, Yu, and Karelitz, 2003 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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.”
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 citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“Uncertainty is inherent to scientific endeavours”
From Negative verbal probabilities undermine communication of climate science (2025) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“how it should be communicated to the public represents an important challenge 8”
From Negative verbal probabilities undermine communication of climate science (2025) · 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.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ Effects by Uncertainty Types
“Importantly, Table 2 does not contain a single instance of consensus uncertainty resulting in positive main effects.”
§ Conditional Effects, Clarifications, and Caveats
“| 7 Wiedemann et al., 2006 | 639 (1) | S | Electromag. Fields | | C | Cr, +EC, R C had sig. (+) effect on perceived status of scientific |”
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ Effects by Uncertainty Types
“This review finds no instances of technical uncertainty resulting in negative effects.”
§ Conditional Effects, Clarifications, and Caveats
“| 1 Johnson & Slovic, 1995 | 669 (3) | S | Chemical Hazards | T | | +/-Cr, +R sig (+) effect on R and trust; sig. (-) effect on expertise |”
Citations
Cites
Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm
Entman, R. M. (1993) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x · Cited by 16,203
Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises
Nickerson, R. S. (1998) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 · Cited by 7,267
Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs
Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x · Cited by 4,344
The Logic of Scientific Discovery.
Rescher, N., Popper, K. R., & Hanson, N. R. (1960) · Philosophy and Phenomenological Research · doi:10.2307/2104331 · Cited by 2,455
Defining Uncertainty: A Conceptual Basis for Uncertainty Management in Model-Based Decision Support
Walker, W. E., Harremoës, P., Rotmans, J., van der Sluijs, J. P., van Asselt, M. B. A., Janssen, P., & Krayer von Krauss, M. P. (2003) · Integrated Assessment · doi:10.1076/iaij.4.1.5.16466 · Cited by 2,067
Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity
Camerer, C., & Weber, M. (1992) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00122575 · Cited by 1,795
Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press
Boykoff, M. T., & Boykoff, J. M. (2004) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001 · Cited by 1,699
Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1990) · doi:10.1007/978-94-009-0621-1 · Cited by 1,575
Communication and Uncertainty Management
Brashers, D. E. (2001) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02892.x · Cited by 1,407
Cancer epidemiology biomarkers & prevention
Press, H. (1991) · Cited by 1,398
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Carpenter RA, 1995, Environmental Professional, 17, 127
- Habicht FH, 1992, Guidance on Risk Characterization for Risk Managers and Risk Assessors
- Kuha M, 2009, Language & Ecology, 2, 1
- Parascandola M, 2000, Research Practitioner, 1, 1
- Stocking SH, 1999, Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science, 23
- Winter S, 2015, Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 34, 251
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Toward effective government communication strategies in the era of COVID-19
Hyland, B., Gardner, J., Leask, J., & Ecker, U. K. H. (2021) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-020-00701-w · Cited by 536
The Evolving Field of Risk Communication
Balog‐Way, D. H. P., McComas, K. A., & Besley, J. C. (2020) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.13615 · Cited by 263
“First, different forms of uncertainty, such as deficient, technical, consensus, and scientific, need to be recognized in research and practice (Bostrom et al., 2018; Gustafson & Rice, 2020; National Academy of Sciences, 2016b; van Der Bles et al., 2020).”
BackgroundScience skepticism in times of COVID-19
Rutjens, B. T., van der Linden, S., & van der Lee, R. (2021) · Group Processes & Intergroup Relations · doi:10.1177/1368430220981415 · Cited by 171
“Although invoking uncertainty is often quoted as a facilitator of science denial, recent work has found that transparently communicating scientific uncertainty about contested facts does not necessarily undermine public trust in science (Gustafson & Rice, 2020; van der Bles et al., 2020).”
BackgroundSauer, M. A., Truelove, S., Gerste, A. K., & Limaye, R. J. (2021) · Health Security · doi:10.1089/hs.2020.0190 · Cited by 102
“People may be more receptive to unknowns when they are presented as steps in the robust scientific process rather than the result of failures by authorities.(32,48)”
BackgroundCommunicating future sea-level rise uncertainty and ambiguity to assessment users
Kopp, R. E., Oppenheimer, M., O’Reilly, J., Drijfhout, S., Edwards, T., Fox‐Kemper, B., Garner, G. G., Golledge, N. R., Hermans, T. H. J., Hewitt, H. T., et al. (2023) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-023-01691-8 · Cited by 103
Communicating Uncertainties during the COVID-19 Outbreak
Paek, H., & Hove, T. B. (2020) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2020.1838092 · Cited by 68
Ihlen, Ø., Just, S. N., Kjeldsen, J. E., Mølster, R., Offerdal, T. S., Rasmussen, J., & Skogerbø, E. (2022) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/13669877.2022.2077416 · Cited by 60
Maani, N., van Schalkwyk, M. C., Filippidis, F. T., Knai, C., & Petticrew, M. P. (2021) · SSM - Population Health · doi:10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.101009 · Cited by 59
Nagler, R. H., Vogel, R. I., Gollust, S. E., Yzer, M. C., & Rothman, A. J. (2021) · Annals of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1093/abm/kaab069 · Cited by 58
Gerken, M. (2022) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198857273.001.0001 · Cited by 60
How should we organize science communication trainings to achieve competencies?
Lewenstein, B. V., & Baram‐Tsabari, A. (2022) · International Journal of Science Education Part B · doi:10.1080/21548455.2022.2136985 · Cited by 65
Oswald, S., Lewiński, M., Greco, S., & Villata, S. (2022) · Argumentation library · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-91017-4 · Cited by 60
A New Dark Age? Truth, Trust, and Environmental Science
Gundersen, T., Alinejad, D., Branch, T. Y., Duffy, B., Hewlett, K., Holst, C., Owens, S. E., Panizza, F., Tellmann, S. M., van Dijck, J., et al. (2022) · Annual Review of Environment and Resources · doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-120920-015909 · Cited by 61
Sadler, C. R., Grassby, T., Hart, K. H., Raats, M. M., Sokolović, M., & Timotijević, L. (2022) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2022.826162 · Cited by 57
“Guastafson and Rice distinguish different types of uncertainties: knowledge gaps (deficient uncertainty), shortcomings of the research (scientific uncertainty), error or probability ranges (technical uncertainty), and controversy among scientists (consensus uncertainty) (53).”
BackgroundHendriks, F., Janssen, I., & Jucks, R. (2022) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2022.2111638 · Cited by 44
Batteux, E., Bilovich, A., Johnson, S. G. B., & Tuckett, D. (2022) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051352 · Cited by 43
Psychological Distance to Science as a Predictor of Science Skepticism Across Domains
Većkalov, B., Zarzeczna, N., McPhetres, J., van Harreveld, F., & Rutjens, B. T. (2022) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/01461672221118184 · Cited by 44
“…work has shown that different types of uncertainty about specific findings can have diverse (and often inconsistent) effects on science attitudes (Gustafson & Rice, 2020; van der Bles et al., 2019), our results suggest that broader perceptions of the applicability and usefulness of science are…”
BackgroundKelp, N., Witt, J. K., & Sivakumar, G. (2021) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/10755470211063628 · Cited by 43
“In addition, the type of uncertainty that is discussed can influence public trust: operationalizing uncertainty as disagreement within the scientific community has negative effects while uncertainty in the form of quantified probabilities had positive or null effects (Gustafson & Rice, 2020).”
BackgroundDemocratic and expert legitimacy: Science, politics and the public during the COVID-19 pandemic
Weingart, P., Schalkwyk, F. B. V., & Guenther, L. (2022) · Science and Public Policy · doi:10.1093/scipol/scac003 · Cited by 42
Ratcliff, C. L., Wicke, R., & Lerner, B. (2022) · Annals of the International Communication Association · doi:10.1080/23808985.2022.2085136 · Cited by 54
Transparent communication of evidence does not undermine public trust in evidence
Kerr, J. R., Schneider, C. R., Freeman, A. L. J., Marteau, T. M., & van der Linden, S. (2022) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac280 · Cited by 42
A Framework for Understanding the Effects of Strategic Communication Campaigns
Goldberg, M. H., & Gustafson, A. (2022) · International Journal of Strategic Communication · doi:10.1080/1553118x.2022.2137674 · Cited by 43
“Also, reviews of the effects of communication (e.g., Banas & Rains, 2010; Gustafson & Rice, 2020; Noar et al., 2009) could use this framework to identify the ways in which a body of research has or has not been addressing both driving and restraining forces, as well as reach, effect, and durability.”
BackgroundSelf-citationGillman, A. S., Scharnetzki, L., Boyd, P., Ferrer, R. A., Klein, W. M. P., & Han, P. K. J. (2022) · Journal of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s10865-022-00302-9 · Cited by 38
“…from disagreement or conflict (which the authors labelled “consensus uncertainty”) typically had negative effects, whereas uncertainty resulting from error ranges and probabilities (which the authors labelled “technical uncertainty”) typically had positive or null effects (Gustafson & Rice, 2020).”
BackgroundUnderstanding responses to different types of conflicting information about cancer prevention
Iles, I. A., Gillman, A. S., O’Connor, L. E., Ferrer, R. A., & Klein, W. M. P. (2022) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115292 · Cited by 37
Schneider, C. R., Freeman, A. L. J., Spiegelhalter, D. J., & van der Linden, S. (2022) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500008962 · Cited by 39
“For the low quality-of-evidence conditions, research has shown that people respond negatively to consensus uncertainty in particular when compared to other kinds of uncertainty (Gustafson & Rice, 2020).”
BackgroundInfluentialReducing Health Misinformation in Science: A Call to Arms
Swire‐Thompson, B., & Lazer, D. M. J. (2022) · The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science · doi:10.1177/00027162221087686 · Cited by 44
“However, Gustafson and Rice (2020) found that people are quite capable of interpreting scientific nuance.”
BackgroundRipberger, J., Bell, A., Fox, A., Forney, A., Livingston, W., Gaddie, C., Silva, C. L., & JENKINS-SMITHa, H. (2022) · Weather, Climate, and Society · doi:10.1175/wcas-d-21-0034.1 · Cited by 20
Simmonds, E. G., Adjei, K. P., Andersen, C. W., Aspheim, J. C. H., Battistin, C., Bulso, N., Christensen, H. M., Cretois, B., Cubero, R. J., Davidovich, I. A., et al. (2022) · iScience · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2022.105512 · Cited by 35
“Some have even demonstrated that a lack of transparency around uncertainty can erode public trust,(16,18,22,58) while communicating technical uncertainty can have positive effects on credibility.(59) Therefore, we should not shy away from reporting uncertainties associated with our work but instead ensure we communica…”
Mapping uncertainty in precision medicine: A systematic scoping review
Lohse, S. (2022) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/jep.13789 · Cited by 33
Xia, S., & Nan, X. (2023) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2023.2218145 · Cited by 31
“As pointed out by Gustafson and Rice (2020), different uncertainty types (e.g., technical uncertainty, scientific uncertainty) may produce different persuasive effects.”
BackgroundJanssen, I., Hendriks, F., & Jucks, R. (2021) · Journal of Language and Social Psychology · doi:10.1177/0261927x211044512 · Cited by 31
“Thus, our findings are in line with those of others who found that the communication of uncertainty does not necessarily cause detrimental effects on communicators’ perceived trustworthiness (Gustafson & Rice, 2020; van der Bles et al., 2019).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialWhen evidence changes: Communicating uncertainty protects against a loss of trust
Dries, C., McDowell, M., Rebitschek, F. G., & Leuker, C. (2024) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/09636625241228449 · Cited by 32
“Evidence across a variety of domains suggests that providing inaccurate or inconsistent information results in a loss of trust in information and its sources (Gustafson and Rice, 2020; Jenkins et al., 2019; Rafkin et al., 2021).”
Public engagement and argumentation in science
Ivani, S., & Novaes, C. D. (2022) · European Journal for Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1007/s13194-022-00480-y · Cited by 30
“Some of these are: the type of uncertainty communicated (Gustafson & Rice, 2020), the degree of transparency (Driedger et al., 2021), and the way uncertainty is presented (Kelp et al., 2022).”
BackgroundJoubert, M., Guenther, L., Metcalfe, J., et al. (2023) · Journal of Science Communication · doi:10.22323/2.22010204 · Cited by 30
Ross, A. R. N., Vaccari, C., & Chadwick, A. (2022) · Mass Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/15205436.2022.2119871 · Cited by 29
“Situations such as these—where there is a lack of evidence—represent what is termed deficient uncertainty according to Gustafson and Rice (2020).”
BackgroundInfluentialRatcliff, C. L., & Wicke, R. (2022) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/09636625221122960 · Cited by 28
“These findings indicate that preference for information about scientific uncertainty indeed varies among public audiences and is one likely reason for mixed results in the empirical literature (e.g. Gustafson and Rice, 2020; Ratcliff et al., 2022).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialThe effect of seeing scientists as intellectually humble on trust in scientists and their research
Koetke, J., Schumann, K., Bowes, S. M., & Vaupotič, N. (2024) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-024-02060-x · Cited by 30
“For example, scientists who admit to mistakes and support open science practices are perceived as more trustworthy 40,41 , and expressing uncertainty and complexity as part of scientific communication can sometimes foster trust 39,42,43 .”
Uncertainty, scarcity and transparency: Public health ethics and risk communication in a pandemic
Lowe, A. E., Voo, T. C., Lee, L. M., Dineen, K. K., Feig, C., Ferdinand, A. O., Mohapatra, S., Brett‐Major, D. M., & Wynia, M. K. (2022) · The Lancet Regional Health - Americas · doi:10.1016/j.lana.2022.100374 · Cited by 32
The effects of communicating uncertainty around statistics, on public trust
Kerr, J. R., van der Bles, A. M., Dryhurst, S., Schneider, C., Chopurian, V., Freeman, A., & van der Linden, S. (2023) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.230604 · Cited by 23
Schneider, C. R., Freeman, A. L. J., Spiegelhalter, D. J., & van der Linden, S. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0259048 · Cited by 28
“confidence intervals) often has only very small effects on the public’s overall trust in either the estimate or the source of the message [40, 41].”
BackgroundCrisis communication strategies for health officials
Su, Z., Zhang, H., McDonnell, D., Aḥmad, J., Cheshmehzangi, A., & Yuan, C. (2022) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.796572 · Cited by 33
“, virus mutations), may further result in (4) scientific uncertainty about the pandemic (47), which could result in health officials’ poor messaging amid COVID-19, and subsequently, contribute to their suboptimal crisis communication capabilities (Figure 1).”
BackgroundGray, A., & Barnett, J. C. (2021) · British Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjhp.12561 · Cited by 36
“Alongside this, researchhas shown that risk communication is seen as having reduced credibility when it is not consistent (Gustafson & Rice, 2020).”
BackgroundShi, W., Rothman, A. J., Yzer, M. C., & Nagler, R. H. (2022) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2022.2077163 · Cited by 25
The Impact of Communicating Uncertainty on Public Responses to Precision Medicine Research
Ratcliff, C. L., Wong, B. G., Jensen, J. D., & Kaphingst, K. A. (2021) · Annals of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1093/abm/kaab050 · Cited by 24
Media Use, Environmental Mediators, and Pro-environmental Behaviors across and within Countries
Rice, R. E., & Miller, L. B. (2023) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2023.2179649 · Cited by 28
“Media coverage of climate controversy can perpetuate a sense of uncertainty (Gustafson & Rice, 2020; Rebich-Hespanha et al., 2015; Rice et al., 2018), potentially reducing audiences’ EA, EEF, and PEB.”
BackgroundSelf-citationRecommendations for quantitative uncertainty consideration in ecology and evolution
Simmonds, E. G., Adjei, K. P., Cretois, B., Dickel, L., González‐Gil, R., Laverick, J. H., Mandeville, C. P., Mandeville, E. G., Ovaskainen, O., Sicacha-Parada, J., et al. (2023) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2023.10.012 · Cited by 23
A practical agenda for incorporating trust into pandemic preparedness and response
Bollyky, T. J., & Petersen, M. B. (2024) · Bulletin of the World Health Organization · doi:10.2471/blt.23.289979 · Cited by 24
“38 Although the goals of clarity and transparency may seem to be in tension, effective sense-making communication should nonetheless strive to achieve both.”
BackgroundWu, Y., Zhang, L., Wang, J., & Mou, Y. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph181910542 · Cited by 23
“It is generally agreed that all science consists of a degree of uncertainty [71,72], and it involves lots of controversy on communicating uncertainty to the public [73].”
BackgroundCobern, W. W., Adams, B. A., Pleasants, B. A.-S., Bentley, A., & Kagumba, R. (2022) · Science & Education · doi:10.1007/s11191-021-00292-1 · Cited by 26
“…reference to the idea that scientific knowledge can change, whereas other academic communities such as the Public Understanding of Science, Science Communication, and Risk Analysis tend to use the word “uncertain” (on the latter, see, for example, Gustafson & Rice, 2020, or Weisberg et al., 2020).”
BackgroundDoyle, E., Thompson, J., Hill, S., Williams, M., Paton, D., Harrison, S., Bostrom, A., & Becker, J. (2023) · International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction · doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103948 · Cited by 18
Multiple Hazard Uncertainty Visualization Challenges and Paths Forward
Padilla, L. M. K., Dryhurst, S., Hosseinpour, H., & Kruczkiewicz, A. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.579207 · Cited by 17
Expert Uncertainty: Arguments Bolstering the Ethos of Expertise in Situations of Uncertainty
Kjeldsen, J. E., Mølster, R., & Ihlen, Ø. (2022) · Argumentation library · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-91017-4_5 · Cited by 21
Theories of Uncertainty Communication: An Interdisciplinary Literature Review
Lammers, W., Ferrari, S., Wenmackers, S., Pattyn, V., & de Walle, S. V. (2024) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/10755470241231290 · Cited by 23
“Uncertainty communication is a central part of science communication (Gustafson & Rice, 2020) but also plays a major role elsewhere.”
BackgroundDo claims about certainty make estimates less certain?
Teigen, K. H., & Juanchich, M. (2024) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105911 · Cited by 20
How to Communicate Science to the Public?
König, L. M., Altenmüller, M. S., Fick, J., Crusius, J., Genschow, O., & Sauerland, M. (2024) · Zeitschrift für Psychologie · doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000572 · Cited by 33
Framing COVID-19 Preprint Research as Uncertain: A Mixed-Method Study of Public Reactions
Ratcliff, C. L., Fleerackers, A., Wicke, R., Harvill, B., King, A. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2023) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2023.2164954 · Cited by 18
“…with information they had previously heard (i.e., prior claims of certainty 5 ), then perceived consensus uncertainty could explain negative reactions to the uncertainty disclosure (see Gustafson & Rice, 2020), underscoring the utility of examining the factors that underlie these effects.”
BackgroundInfluentialCommunicating climate change impacts to Australian coastal and marine communities
Nursey‐Bray, M. (2023) · Ocean & Coastal Management · doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2023.106667 · Cited by 21
Tetzlaff, E. J., Goulet, N., Gorman, M., et al. (2023) · Journal of Public Health Management and Practice · doi:10.1097/phh.0000000000001817 · Cited by 19
“24 For example, “hyperthermia” [28], “heat tetany”[29], and “heat syncope”[30] were cited within the articles.”
Varieties of Ignorance: Mystery and the Unknown in Science and Religion
Davoodi, T., & Lombrozo, T. (2022) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.13129 · Cited by 18
“Prior work––for instance, in the context of risk communication and climate change––has investigated public responses to sci-entific uncertainty (Gustafson & Rice, 2020), including different ways in which uncertainty can be conveyed.”
BackgroundCrabu, S., Picardi, I., & Turrini, V. (2022) · Science as Culture · doi:10.1080/09505431.2022.2138309 · Cited by 20
“journalists and public intellectual elites) have lost their monopoly on defining the content of public communication about health and illness issues (Larson, 2018; Armstrong and Naylor, 2019; Gustafson and Rice, 2020).”
BackgroundNagler, R. H., Gollust, S. E., Yzer, M. C., Vogel, R. I., & Rothman, A. J. (2023) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116194 · Cited by 19
Løhre, E., & Teigen, K. H. (2023) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/17470218231204350 · Cited by 20
“A review of research on science communication found that negative effects of communicating scientific uncertainty occurred mostly when uncertainty was operationalised as disagreement or conflict (Gustafson & Rice, 2020).”
BackgroundInfluentialRatcliff, C. L. (2021) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/10755470211038335 · Cited by 19
“Furthermore, the typology can facilitate the design and interpretation of message experiments that strategically vary these communication features, helping to organize the discordant empirical literature on the effects of communication of scientific uncertainty (Gustafson & Rice, 2020).”
BackgroundInfluentialVaupotič, N., Kienhues, D., & Jucks, R. (2024) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/09636625241227800 · Cited by 21
“…of the first studies relating complexity communication with trustworthiness judgements; however, many parallels can be drawn from studies focusing on uncertainty communication, where similar positive connections have been found, especially regarding technical uncertainty (Gustafson and Rice, 2020).”
BackgroundKokkinias, K., Pruneski, K., Wrighton, K. C., & Kelp, N. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0312427 · Cited by 15
Simonovic, N., Taber, J. M., Scherr, C. L., Dean, M., Hua, J., Howell, J. L., Chaudhry, B. M., Wain, K. E., & Politi, M. C. (2022) · Journal of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s10865-022-00384-5 · Cited by 16
“This framework of uncertainty and the relationship to various effects is summarized here based on findings from Gustafson and Rice, 2020 1 3 544 have conceptualized ambiguity aversion as low ambiguity tolerance (Han, 2016; Simonovic et al., 2020).”
Berg, S. H., Shortt, M. T., Røislien, J., Lungu, D. A., Thune, H., & Wiig, S. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0275316 · Cited by 14
“Gustafson and Rices’ [15] review of the experimental literature on different types of trust, explaining the confidence interval related to the R-number and explaining probabilities related to infection prevention measures may increase public trust, as these are related to communicating technical uncertainty [15].”
BackgroundInfluentialSchlögl, M., Graser, A., Spiekermann, R., et al. (2025) · Natural hazards and earth system sciences · doi:10.5194/nhess-25-1425-2025 · Cited by 13
Wen, Y., Zhao, X., Zang, Y., & Li, X. (2024) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-024-03640-y · Cited by 13
“The specialized social division of labor and the growing uncertainty of risk reinforces the structural dependence of the public on experts, and the public expects expert systems to solve problems or provide security (Gauchat, 2012; Keren, 2018; Gustafson and Rice, 2020).”
Conceptualizing River Floodplains
Wohl, E. (2025) · Earth s Future · doi:10.1029/2024ef005681 · Cited by 16
“Although machine learning is increasingly applied to reduce uncertainty of prediction (e.g., Sharafati et al., 2020), being able to effectively communicate uncertainty to nonscientists remains a fundamental challenge (Gustafson & Rice, 2020).”
Evaluating effective public engagement: local stories from a global network of IPCC scientists
Pidcock, R., Heath, K., Messling, L., Wang, S., Pirani, A., Connors, S. L., Corner, A., Shaw, C. J., & Gomis, M. (2021) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-021-03230-w · Cited by 15
“However, more recently, there appears to have been a shift towards greater public understanding of scientific uncertainty, with some studies indicating that people understand that uncertainties are a natural and necessary part of scientific inquiry and that discussing uncertainty does not, on its own, result in a loss…”
BackgroundCitizen science with colour blindness: A case study on the Forel-Ule scale
Burggraaff, O., Panchagnula, S., & Snik, F. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0249755 · Cited by 14
“Training participants to estimate and provide uncertainties would further help them understand the value of their data [45].”
BackgroundMethodManaging the COVID-19 pandemic: predictors of trust in institutions in Romania
Bârgăoanu, A., Corbu, N., Buturoiu, R., & Durach, F. (2021) · Kybernetes · doi:10.1108/k-12-2020-0913 · Cited by 10
Lu, J., Zhang, M., Zheng, Y., & Li, Q. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph182211933 · Cited by 15
“In addition, a recent systematic review of 48 experimental studies revealed that the communication of uncertainty regarding the evidence’s deficiency and consensus yielded adverse effects in terms of decreasing belief in, perceived credibility of, or intentions to follow recommendations of the message in most risk com…”
BackgroundRobinson, J. A., Novak, R., Kanduč, T., Maggos, T., Pardali, D., Stamatelopoulou, A., Saraga, D. E., Vienneau, D., Flückiger, B., Mikeš, O., et al. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph182312544 · Cited by 19
“Adding information about technical uncertainty is considered a positive practice when communicating the results [59].”
BackgroundThe effect of uncertainty communication on public trust depends on belief–evidence consistency
Dries, C., McDowell, M., Schneider, C., & Rebitschek, F. (2025) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf071 · Cited by 14
“The identification of moderating factors could help explain the heterogeneity found in the effects of uncertainty communication on trust (17).”
How people decide who is correct when groups of scientists disagree
Johnson, B. B., Mayorga, M. W., & Dieckmann, N. F. (2023) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.14204 · Cited by 11
“…and exhibit more trust; Johnson, 2004), erroneous beliefs about the topic (e.g., make poorer decisions if uncertainties are misunderstood or subject to motivated reasoning; Dieckmann et al., 2017; Joslyn & LeClerc, 2012), and bias in one’s own risk estimates (e.g., Gustafson & Rice, 2020).”
BackgroundRatcliff, C. L., Harvill, B., & Wicke, R. (2023) · Frontiers in Communication · doi:10.3389/fcomm.2023.1245786 · Cited by 12
A Meta-Analysis Synthesizing the Effects of Three Uncertainty Types in Science Communication
Zaifu, G., Liu, K., & Chen, M. (2025) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/10755470251314129 · Cited by 14
“To this end, a review study has attempted to consolidate the current findings, proposing a taxonomy of distinct types of uncertainty communication (Gustafson & Rice, 2020).”
InfluentialOn masks and masking: epistemic harms and science communication
Intemann, K. K., & de Melo‐Martín, I. (2023) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-023-04322-z · Cited by 12
Framing Environmental Disasters for Nonviolent Protest: A Content Analysis
Matejova, M. (2023) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2023.2195589 · Cited by 10
“While uncertainty has not been a frequently studied aspect of the protest mobilization process, the extant literature suggests that uncertainty has mixed effects on people’s beliefs, attitudes, and willingness to act (Gustafson & Rice, 2020).”
BackgroundCommunication of Statistics and Evidence in Times of Crisis
Schneider, C., Kerr, J. R., Dryhurst, S., & Aston, J. (2023) · Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application · doi:10.1146/annurev-statistics-040722-052011 · Cited by 14
“However, empirical evidence suggests that clear communication of numeric uncertainty, such as expressed by using a range rather than a point estimate, does not undermine trust in communicators or scientists more generally (Gustafson & Rice, 2020; van der Bles et al., 2020).”
BackgroundInfluentialOrchinik, R., Dubey, R., Gershman, S. J., Powell, D., & Bhui, R. (2024) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae485 · Cited by 18
Safi, A. G., Kalaji, M., Avery, R. J., Niederdeppe, J., Mathios, A., Dorf, M. C., & Byrne, S. E. (2023) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2023.2170092 · Cited by 10
“Some typologies include two categories (Simpkin & Armstrong, 2019), four (Bairamzadeh et al., 2018; Gustafson & Rice, 2019, 2020) and beyond.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialMcCartney, M., Sullivan, F., & Heneghan, C. (2020) · BMJ evidence-based medicine · doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111541 · Cited by 11
McDowell, M., & Kause, A. (2021) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.13739 · Cited by 12
“…to have detrimental effects on a variety of attitudinal, behavioral, and trust-related outcomes, although results are mixed for different uncertainty types, and tend to be more negative for conflicting estimates (Gustafson & Rice, 2020; van der Bles, van der Linden, Freeman, & Spiegelhalter, 2020).”
ResultExpressions of uncertainty in online science communication hinder information diffusion
Stavrova, O., Kleinberg, B., Evans, A. M., & Ivanović, M. (2024) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae439 · Cited by 9
“Second, prior studies examined the role of uncertainty in the perception of science in controlled laboratory or online experiments, using a limited number of stimuli tailored specifically for experimental purposes (8, 9).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialAssigning trend‐based conservation status despite high uncertainty
White, R. S. A., Stoffels, R. J., & WHITEHEAD, A. L. (2023) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.14084 · Cited by 9
Adams, D. R., Ratcliff, C. L., Pokharel, M., Jensen, J. D., & Liao, Y. (2023) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.14256 · Cited by 9
“Research has demonstrated that the public is often more receptive of uncertainty than scientists might expect (Gustafson & Rice, 2020; Jensen, 2008; Ratcliff & Wicke, 2022; Steijaert et al., 2021), yet scientists still wrestle with whether or not to communicate various forms and degrees of…”
InfluentialGlaser, M., Lengyel, D., Toulouse, C., & Schwan, S. (2022) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-022-09659-4 · Cited by 7
“…be reduced given more information which we currently do not know but theoretically could and which is similar to deficient uncertainty by Gustafson & Rice, 2020), and ontological uncertainty (uncertainty about how accurately the modelling describes reality which can only be described…”
BackgroundInfluentialKönig, L. M., Altenmüller, M. S., Fick, J., Crusius, J., Genschow, O., & Sauerland, M. (2023) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/cwbrs · Cited by 9
Narrative visualizations: Depicting accumulating risks and increasing trust in data
Fansher, M., Walls, L. A., Hao, C.-X., Subramonyam, H., Boduroglu, A., Shah, P., & Witt, J. K. (2025) · Cognitive Research · doi:10.1186/s41235-025-00613-w · Cited by 8
“…(Yang et al., 2023), and the role of visualization features such as processing fluency (Elhamdadi et al., 2022a), title alignment (Kong et al., 2019), and the communication of uncertainty (Gustafson & Rice, 2020; Hullman, 2019; Kerr et al., 2023; van der Bles et al. (2020); Yang et al., 2023).”
Morphett, K., Magi-Prowse, C. R., Roiko, A. H., & Fielding, K. S. (2025) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/13669877.2025.2522653 · Cited by 8
“In a systematic review of studies which have experimentally manipulated scientific uncertainty, Gustafson and Rice (2020) found that effects depend on the type of scientific uncertainty included in the message.”
Public Evaluations of Misinformation and Motives for Sharing It
Osman, M. (2024) · Journalism and Media · doi:10.3390/journalmedia5020050 · Cited by 7
“…to scientific claims that are communicated to the public, either directly by an academic or translated by journalists or popular science writers, concerns have been raised about exaggerations (Bratton et al. 2019; Bott et al. 2019) or the downplaying of uncertainties (Gustafson and Rice 2020).”
BackgroundPolarized framing of scientific uncertainty during COVID-19 pandemic in Morocco
Zag, H., & Mifdal, M. (2024) · Atlantic Journal of Communication · doi:10.1080/15456870.2024.2370274 · Cited by 8
“This process is shaped by various factors, including the topic, organizational practices, stakeholder motivations, and the specific context, rather than by disin-terested choices (Goffman, 1974; Entman, 1993; Gamson & Modigliani, 1989; Gustafson & Rice, 2020; Pan & Kosicki, 1993).”
Umgang mit Ungewissheit als Charakteristikum von Nature of Science
Lübke, B., & Heuckmann, B. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-68409-2_6 · Cited by 7
Journalism and public trust in science
Schipani, V. (2024) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-024-04701-0 · Cited by 7
“This executive knew something that science communication researchers would find empirical evidence to support decades later: That people tend to distrust science communicated as in disagreement (see e.g. Gustafson & Rice, 2020 ).”
InfluentialLivanec, S., Stumpf, M., Reuter, L., Fenn, J., & Kiesel, A. (2022) · The Anthropocene Review · doi:10.1177/20530196221078924 · Cited by 7
Seeking evidence and explanation signals religious and scientific commitments
Gill, M., & Lombrozo, T. (2023) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105496 · Cited by 8
“Especially given reluctance to convey scientific uncertainty in media communications of scientific findings (e.g., Gustafson & Rice, 2020; Jensen, 2008), one might assume that the common perception of what it means to be scientific is to simply defer to scientific consensus without asking further…”
BackgroundQuantifying regulatory limits for multiple stressors in an open and transparent way
Stoffels, R. J., & White, R. S. A. (2024) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.14375 · Cited by 6
“In turn, practitioners and other stakeholders are left vulnerable to surprises and unintended consequences, which ultimately discredits scientific input to policy and planning (Gustafson & Rice, 2020; Stirling, 2010; van der Bles et al., 2019; White et al., 2023).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Gustafson, A., & Rice, R. E.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- University of California, USA
- Corresponding author
- Gustafson, Abel
- 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
- OpenAlex
- W3042498646
- Semantic Scholar
- 82f1e7e1a27c3b3b301e986b68f0850fb16b93c6
- 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
- green
- escholarship.org
- 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 › Library and Information Sciences › 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (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
