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
Items 101–200 of 286
Abeysinghe, S., Tao, Y., Kyei-Baffour, P. A., & Adrion, E. (2024) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117554 · Cited by 8
Uncertainty, expertise, and persuasion: A replication and extension of
Løhre, E., Chandrashekar, S. P., Mayiwar, L., & Hærem, T. (2024) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104619 · Cited by 10
Guenther, L., & Granert, L. (2022) · Journal of Science Communication · doi:10.22323/2.21050303 · Cited by 6
“…institutions, to increase the evidence gathered and reach more independent certainty; hence, to minimize ever-present tentativeness uncertainty [Gustafson & Rice, 2020; Popper, 1960]. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.21050303 JCOM 21(05)(2022)C03 2 The scenes of the movie mentioned above largely…”
BackgroundInfluentialCommunicating Corrected Risk Assessments and Uncertainty About COVID-19 in the Post-truth Era
Fernandes, A. (2021) · Frontiers in Communication · doi:10.3389/fcomm.2021.646066 · Cited by 6
“How do different audiences interpret and reappropriate the levels of risk and uncertainty that are in dispute during the correction of risk during the COVID-19 crisis? Recent research suggests that a lack of consensus among experts produces more public distrust than uncertainty in terms of data (Gustafson and Rice, 20…”
BackgroundMajcen, A., & Spitzer, P. (2025) · International Journal of Science Education Part B · doi:10.1080/21548455.2025.2551292 · Cited by 5
“Some of the students implied that they wanted to gain ‘real’ knowledge and to know the ‘absolute’ truth, which possibly indicates that the students are not aware of the various uncertainties that are inherent to the nature of science (Gustafson & Rice, 2020).”
Science Training for Political Reporters: Understanding Impact with a Mixed Methods Approach
Smith, H. M., Markowitz, D. M., & Gilbert, C. (2022) · Journalism Practice · doi:10.1080/17512786.2022.2065337 · Cited by 5
“For example, Gustafson and Rice (2020) performed a systematic review of experimental studies to understand if including explanations of scienti fi c uncertainty had positive or negative e ff ects on audience beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors.”
Altman, K., Yelton, B., Viado, H. F., et al. (2021) · Journal of South Carolina water resources · doi:10.34068/jscwr/08.01.04 · Cited by 5
“This aligns with other findings demonstrating a limited and conditional tolerance for scientific uncertainty from the general public (Gustafson and Rice 2020).”
BackgroundResultGlaser, M., Aberle, S., & Schwan, S. (2023) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104826 · Cited by 6
I think, therefore I act, Revisited: Building a stronger foundation for risk analysis
Árvai, J., Cohen, A. S., Lutzke, L., & Otten, C. D. (2023) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.14177 · Cited by 5
“Investigatingthisinteractionwouldrequirelong-termresearchon thebenefitsofinstillingAOT(e.g.,seevanderBlesetal.,2019;Gustafson&Rice, 2020). make better informed risk management choices.”
BackgroundNovak, M., Gramser, S., Köster, S., Ceseña, F., Gerber-Hirt, S., Schwan, S., & Lewalter, D. (2023) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.21830 · Cited by 5
What do people make of “Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management”?
Briguglio, M., Ramírez‐Monsalve, P., Abela, G., & Armelloni, E. N. (2025) · Frontiers in Marine Science · doi:10.3389/fmars.2025.1553838 · Cited by 6
Howell, E. L. (2020) · Harvard Data Science Review · doi:10.1162/99608f92.f2823096 · Cited by 5
“…message conveying uncertainty, consensus uncertainty, as the authors called uncertainty stemming from conflict between scientists, almost always led to negative results, meaning that readers were less likely to Ju t Accepted follow the recommendations of the information (Gustafson & Rice, 2020).”
BackgroundInfluentialBéchard, B., Kimmerle, J., Lawarée, J., Bédard, P.-O., Straus, S. E., & Ouimet, M. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph19106234 · Cited by 6
“While the methodological limitations of studies included in a systematic review refer to deficient uncertainty, the degree of agreement/disagreement in a body of evidence relates to consensus uncertainty [37,38].”
BackgroundInfluentialUncertainty in biology classrooms: a matter of disciplinary culture?
Lübke, B. (2023) · Teachers and Teaching · doi:10.1080/13540602.2023.2271418 · Cited by 5
“New uncertainties (unexpected results as well as new questions) may arise in the research process, just as there may be uncertainties in the data related to measurement procedures or different approaches to interpreting the data (see Gustafson & Rice, 2020; Kampourakis & McCain, 2020).”
Evidence for policy-makers: A matter of timing and certainty?
Lammers, W., Pattyn, V., Ferrari, S., et al. (2024) · Policy Sciences · doi:10.1007/s11077-024-09526-9 · Cited by 5
“It is natural for evidence to come with some degree of uncertainty (Stringer & Dougill, 2013; Gustafson & Rice, 2020), especially if it concerns predictions, since the future is inherently uncertain (Walker & Marchau, 2003; Van Dorsser et al., 2018).”
Robinson, J. A., Novak, R., Kanduč, T., Maggos, T., Pardali, D., Stamatelopoulou, A., Saraga, D. E., Vienneau, D., Flückiger, B., Mikeš, O., et al. (2021) · Preprints.org · doi:10.20944/preprints202110.0031.v1 · Cited by 5
Fian, L., Vaupotič, N., Richter, I., Koelmans, A. A., & Pahl, S. (2026) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/09636625251410494 · Cited by 4
“Second, our findings on risk perception further add to the body of literature on the distinct effects of communicating consensus uncertainty (see Gustafson and Rice, 2020).”
InfluentialA temperature check on climate communication: where are we?
Strydhorst, N. A. (2025) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-025-04585-6 · Cited by 5
“…reception and effectiveness, as perceptions of legitimate uncertainties, honestly conveyed, are a substantial remaining unknown (Maier et al. 2016; Gustafson and Rice 2020), even as the damages in fl icted by manufactured and weaponized uncertainty are well documented (Oreskes and Conway 2010;…”
InfluentialPaek, H., & Hove, T. B. (2024) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/13669877.2024.2311410 · Cited by 6
“A systematic review of studies of public-facing science communication has reported mixed findings about the positive and negative effects of communicating uncertainty (Gustafson and Rice 2020).”
BackgroundInfluentialWatson, S., Benning, T. J., Marcon, A. R., Zhu, X., Caulfield, T., Sharp, R. R., & Master, Z. (2024) · JMIR Infodemiology · doi:10.2196/51328 · Cited by 5
Jallinoja, P. T., Vento, E., & Väliverronen, E. (2024) · Scandinavian Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1177/14034948241289633 · Cited by 4
“Other factors potentially contributing to an erosion of trust in science include scientific uncertainty caused by the pandemic [10], disagreement among experts [11] and constant changes in policy recommendations [10].”
Psychological insights for judging expertise and implications for adversarial legal contexts
Martire, K. A., Neal, T. M. S., Gobet, F. R., Chin, J. M., Berengut, J. F., & Edmond, G. (2025) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-025-00430-4 · Cited by 9
Bridging Law and Soil Science to Promote Soil Health
Alblas, E., Edlinger, A., Helfenstein, J., et al. (2025) · European Journal of Soil Science · doi:10.1111/ejss.70127 · Cited by 4
“While disagreements or conflicts in science can be harmful to scientific credibility, evidence shows that communicating technical uncertainty, such as error ranges and probabilities, has no or even a positive effect on science communication (Gustafson and Rice 2020).”
Bogomoletc, E., Goodwin, J., & Binder, A. R. (2021) · Risk, systems and decisions · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-77344-1_14 · Cited by 4
Henkel, M., Jacob, A., & Perrey, L. (2024) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-52998-6_9 · Cited by 4
Howley, S. E., Smythe, T., Diamond, E. P., & Bidwell, D. (2025) · Energy Research & Social Science · doi:10.1016/j.erss.2025.104403 · Cited by 6
Wang, L., Gollust, S. E., Rothman, A. J., Vogel, R. I., Yzer, M. C., & Nagler, R. H. (2024) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2024.2350844 · Cited by 3
“Such expert disagreement has sometimes been referred to as “consensus uncertainty” (Gustafson & Rice, 2020), where experts include both individual researchers and scientists (e.g., public health, nutrition, or tobacco control experts) as well as professional organizations (e.g., U.S. Preventive…”
The role of consensus messaging in teaching evolution
Korfmacher, I. M., Hammann, M., & Konnemann, C. (2024) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500693.2024.2400724 · Cited by 3
“Conversely, we predicted a decrease in acceptance in the absence of consensus messaging when consensus uncertainty is communicated (Gustafson & Rice, 2020).”
InfluentialMinnich, A., Roggenkamp, H., & Lange, A. (2024) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2024.106778 · Cited by 4
Literate and Critical? Characterizing Users of Alternative Scientific Media
Zils, L., Wintterlin, F., Metag, J., Mede, N. G., & Schäfer, M. S. (2025) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/10755470251323525 · Cited by 3
“Therefore, uncertainty regarding scientific information might be decisive for how people navigate information on science (Gustafson & Rice, 2020).”
Bruns, M., & Kim, S. G. (2025) · American Journal of Health Promotion · doi:10.1177/08901171251330398 · Cited by 3
Protest Under Uncertainty: Evidence from a Survey Experiment
Matejova, M., & Merkley, E. (2021) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2021.1974068 · Cited by 4
“As noted by Gustafson and Rice (2020), uncertainty framing can have negative, positive, or null effect on people’s beliefs and attitudes.”
BackgroundHits and Misses: Digital Contact Tracing in a Pandemic
Garry, M., Zajac, R., Hope, L., Salathé, M., Levine, L. J., & Merritt, T. A. (2023) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916231179365 · Cited by 3
“…uncertainty framed as a conflict or controversy among scientists is frequently associated with negative effects, whereas uncertainty that reflects a technical issue, such as the margin of error, is typically associated with positive effects or no effect (for a review, see Gustafson & Rice, 2020).”
BackgroundScience Fiction Fan Conventions as Places to Communicate Science
Childers, G. M., Governor, D., Greer, K. A., & James, V. S. (2023) · Research in Science Education · doi:10.1007/s11165-023-10130-9 · Cited by 3
“…providing specific information, facts, and context related to science concepts, especially controversial topics, as well as recognizing the tentative nature and uncertainty of science and research are useful when communicating with the public (Gustafson & Rice, 2020; Schmid & Betsch, 2019).”
Heuckmann, B., & Lübke, B. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-68409-2_7 · Cited by 3
Shim, M., Kim, Y., & Park, K. (2021) · Asian Communication Research · doi:10.20879/acr.2021.18.3.131 · Cited by 3
Recchia, G. L., Schneider, C. R., & Freeman, A. L. J. (2021) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047731 · Cited by 3
Varieties of ignorance: Mystery and the unknown in science and religionPreprint
Davoodi, T., & Lombrozo, T. (2022) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/r57hb · Cited by 3
Robinson, J. A., Novak, R., Kanduč, T., Maggos, T., Pardali, D., Stamatelopoulou, A., Saraga, D. E., Vienneau, D., Flückiger, B., Mikeš, O., et al. (2021) · Preprints.org · doi:10.20944/preprints202110.0031.v2 · Cited by 3
Psychological distance to science as a predictor of science skepticism across domainsPreprint
Većkalov, B., Zarzeczna, N., McPhetres, J., van Harreveld, F., & Rutjens, B. T. (2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/avtgu · Cited by 3
BOLD STATEMENTS in environmental and climate science communicationPreprint
Karpouzoglou, T., Muilwijk, M., Lauber, J., Tsiouvalas, A., & Brehmer-Moltmann, J. (2022) · doi:10.5194/gc-2022-14 · Cited by 3
Negative verbal probabilities undermine communication of climate science
Juanchich, M., Teigen, K. H., Shepherd, T. G., & Sirota, M. (2025) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-025-02472-1 · Cited by 2
“Climate misinformation 1,2 exploits the existence of uncertainty in climate science to sow doubt about how much scientists agree on climate science 3–7 and fuel climate change scepticism 8 .”
Simonovic, N., & Taber, J. M. (2025) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2025.2540061 · Cited by 2
“Multiple frameworks exist that delineate different types of uncertainty (e.g., Gustafson & Rice, 2020; Han et al., 2011; see also Simonovic & Taber, 2025).”
InfluentialDries, C., Schneider, C. R., Oeberst, A., McDowell, M., Egharevba, G., & Rebitschek, F. G. (2026) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.251896 · Cited by 2
Ethics and Data in Precision Nutrition: A Roadmap for Responsible Innovation
Martinho, A. M., Ordovás, J. M., Daniel, H., Roche, H. M., Berry, S. E., Thomas, D. M., Patra, A., & Booth, S. L. (2026) · Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.tjnut.2026.101547 · Cited by 2
The Psychology of Conflictive Uncertainty
Smithson, M. J. (2022) · Studies in big data · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-95239-6_1 · Cited by 2
Explaining Regularities or Individual Outcomes: Chance and the Limits of Social Science
Glaesser, J. (2023) · Sociological Research Online · doi:10.1177/13607804231158504 · Cited by 2
“…fortuity or whatever term is employed, it might be useful to stress the role of chance more when researchers (or science journalists) report scientific findings (see, e.g. Gustafson and Rice, 2020, for an overview of the range of effects of communicating different types of uncertainty).”
BackgroundUsikkerhet om kostråd må kommuniseres bedre
Berg, S. H., & Fjæran, L. (2023) · Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening · doi:10.4045/tidsskr.23.0422 · Cited by 2
“Forskning peker i økende grad i retning av at transparens, åpenhet og kommunikasjon av usikkerhet kan styrke befolkningens tillit (2, 3).”
BackgroundEpidemiological Models and Epistemic Perspectives: How Scientific Pluralism may be Misconstrued
Gaj, N. (2023) · Foundations of Science · doi:10.1007/s10699-023-09936-7 · Cited by 2
“According to these authors, the type of uncertainty that takes the form of disaccord among stakeholders (scientists in primis ) or within a salient body of evidence is that most clearly associated with negative effects (Gustafson & Rice, 2020).”
Discussing trust and resilience: The need for a healthy dose of distrust
Scharte, B. (2024) · Risk Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy · doi:10.1002/rhc3.12287 · Cited by 2
Golding, J. D., & Chmura, H. E. (2024) · Conservation Science and Practice · doi:10.1111/csp2.13090 · Cited by 2
“…should turn to the literature on communicating scientific uncertainty, (see Retzbach & Maier, 2015; Boan et al., 2018; Van Der Bles et al., 2019; Gustafson & Rice, 2020, for examples), we argue that conservation biology must also grapple with new pathways of data sharing in networked…”
BackgroundAltenmüller, M. S., Stark, J., Schlegl, S., Englhardt, K., Dengl, P., Henning, W., Bloemer, J., & Gollwitzer, M. (2024) · Zeitschrift für Psychologie · doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000569 · Cited by 3
Thomas, J. C., Düsing, K., van den Bogaert, V., Greving, H., Bruckermann, T., Schumann, A., BRANDT, M. J., Lewanzik, D., Voigt, C. C., & Kimmerle, J. (2026) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-026-08075-1 · Cited by 2
“Reviews consequently recommend precise framing (technical vs. consensus uncertainty), early disclosure when feasible, and transparency about evidence quality to avoid perceived hedging or inconsistency (Gustafson & Rice, 2020; van der Bles et al., 2019).”
Five Lessons for Closing the Last Mile: How to Make Climate Decision Support Actionable
Baylis, K., Lentz, E., Caylor, K. K., et al. (2025) · Earth s Future · doi:10.1029/2024ef005799 · Cited by 2
“To help prepare communities for shortfalls, we need to first clearly communicate the uncertainty associated with our models in ways that are accessible to end users (Gustafson & Rice, 2020).”
A Mixed-Methods Study of Public Understanding of Scientific Uncertainty
Beets, B., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2025) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/10755470251348142 · Cited by 2
Klimabildung in der VUCA-Welt: Mit Ungewissheiten und Unsicherheiten umgehen (lernen)
Hanke, M., & Lübke, B. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-48374-6_20 · Cited by 2
Pandemic control - do's and don'ts from a control theory perspective
Tomov, L., Miteva, D., Sekulovski, M., Batselova, H., & Velikova, T. V. (2022) · World Journal of Methodology · doi:10.5662/wjm.v12.i5.392 · Cited by 2
Certainly uncertainty: Communicating uncertainty in science museumsPreprint
Altenmüller, M. S., Stark, J., Schlegl, S., Englhardt, K., Dengl, P., Henning, W., Bloemer, J., & Gollwitzer, M. (2023) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/fxved · Cited by 2
University professor in a situation of total uncertainty
Solovyova, S. V. (2023) · Вестник Самарского университета. История, педагогика, филология · doi:10.18287/2542-0445-2023-29-1-67-76 · Cited by 1
Stedtnitz, C., Szewach, P., & Johns, R. (2024) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfae010 · Cited by 2
Swenson, R. D., & Marson, C. (2024) · Journal of Applied Communications · doi:10.4148/1051-0834.2498 · Cited by 1
The many faces of uncertainty: a comment to Lofstedt and Bouder
Renn, O. (2024) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/13669877.2024.2360927 · Cited by 1
“…can be quantified or, applying Bayesian methods, to be at least assessed by expert judgments. this dominant framing of risk is underlying what has been referred to as the technocratic, decisionistic or mode 2 approach to understanding and measuring risk (Gustafson and Rice 2020; Kahneman 2011).”
Illegible Performance: Constructing Scientific Credibility in the “Post-Truth” Era
Nelson, J. P. (2025) · Bulletin of Science Technology & Society · doi:10.1177/02704676251324470 · Cited by 4
“In a review of 48 experiments on uncertainty in science communication, Gustafson and Rice (2020) fi nd messaging emphasizing con fl ict in science to sometimes reduce trust in science, but uncertainty expressed in terms of probabilities to have null or positive effects.”
Doyle, E., Thompson, J., Hill, S. R., Williams, M., Paton, D., Harrison, S. E., Bostrom, A., & Becker, J. S. (2025) · International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction · doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105731 · Cited by 2
Developing Experimental Probabilistic Intensity Forecast Products for Landfalling Tropical Cyclones
Eicher, R., Halperin, D. J., Trabing, B. C., Lane, D. R., Sellnow, D. D., Sellnow, T. L., & Croker, M. (2025) · Meteorological Applications · doi:10.1002/met.70089 · Cited by 2
“Technical uncertainty is defined as a prediction limited by observation error and modeling assumptions (Gustafson and Rice 2020).”
The social life of health-promotion messages: Message effects in complex information environments
Scholz, C., Chan, H., Hendriks, H., & van Reijmersdal, E. A. (2025) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118658 · Cited by 1
Lepoutre, M. (2025) · Ergo an Open Access Journal of Philosophy · doi:10.3998/ergo.8579 · Cited by 1
How science education research journals address (and neglect) trust in science
Erduran, S., & Cheung, K. K. C. (2025) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102218 · Cited by 1
Fjæran, L., Gould, K. P., Berg, S. H., & Lofthus, L. (2025) · Risk Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy · doi:10.1002/rhc3.70043 · Cited by 1
Complexity and Non-knowledge as a Challenge: Is There a Tendency to Prefer Linear Explanations?
Ehras, C., & Dittmer, A. (2025) · Contributions from biology education research · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-05346-6_11 · Cited by 1
Chen, Y., Luo, S., Xu, L., & Tan, M. (2026) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2025.1636789 · Cited by 1
Lepoutre, M. (2026) · doi:10.1093/9780198916017.001.0001 · Cited by 1
Uncertainty undermines the validity of antimicrobial pharmacodynamics
Woodward, A. P. (2026) · Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics · doi:10.1007/s10928-026-10023-0 · Cited by 1
A General Public’s Perspective: Factors that Constrain Individual Trust in Science
Varda, C., Iordanou, K., & Antoniou, J. (2026) · SpringerBriefs in research and innovation governance · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-15723-2_6 · Cited by 1
Orieschnig, C., Adla, S., Chun, K. P., Srivastava, S., Morovati, K., Howard, B. C., Octavianti, T., Uchôa, J. G. S. M., Duan, Z., Mazzoglio, P., et al. (2026) · Hydrological Sciences Journal · doi:10.1080/02626667.2026.2625282 · Cited by 2
“In line with Gustafson and Rice (2020), workshop participants found that expressing uncertainty in the form of quantified error ranges and probabilities largely had beneficial effects.”
The “bread and butter” of science: understanding how scientists communicate uncertainties
Roney, C., Egelhofer, J. L., & Lecheler, S. (2026) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-026-07026-0 · Cited by 1
“Participants foremost de fi ned uncertainties in relation to quantitative empirical research and statistical analysis, and subsequently de fi cient or incomplete data (i.e., technical and de fi cient uncertainties, see Gustafson and Rice 2020).”
InfluentialAminudin, M., Nugraha, E. D., Kudo, H., Kranrod, C., Osanai, M., Omori, Y., Tokonami, S., & Hosoda, M. (2026) · Journal of Radiological Protection · doi:10.1088/1361-6498/ae5717 · Cited by 1
“This disconnect aligns with broader science communication theory, where uncertainty and weak trust are known to restrict preparedness [80–83].”
Medical misinformation and the crisis of professional authority
Deidda, M., & Saba, L. (2026) · Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · doi:10.1177/01410768261435340 · Cited by 1
“11 Trust in medicine has often been equated with certainty and authority.”
Smithson, M. J. (2026) · doi:10.1093/9780198960614.001.0001 · Cited by 1
Coberley, D. D., & Speltz, E. D. (2026) · Research Methods in Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1016/j.rmal.2026.100319 · Cited by 1
Chen, J., Dai, F., & Mou, Y. (2026) · Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media · doi:10.1080/08838151.2026.2674221 · Cited by 1
How communicative trust shapes cognitive trust
Bernecker, S., & Grundmann, T. (2026) · Frontiers in Communication · doi:10.3389/fcomm.2026.1665595 · Cited by 1
Irreproducible research and a typology of replication efforts
Treves, A., Chinn, S., & Krofel, M. (2026) · Research Integrity and Peer Review · doi:10.1186/s41073-026-00203-4 · Cited by 2
“While disclosing some forms of uncertainty is well-received among the general public (e.g., technical estimates, study limitations), disagreement among researchers is a form of uncertainty that can provoke distrust [68].”
Uncertainty displays in pandemic dashboards: a review of COVID-19 use cases
Tessema, T., Shahezian, M., Vasquez, H. M., Rosella, L., & Donmez, B. (2026) · Frontiers in Digital Health · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2026.1869108 · Cited by 1
Fake news & bad science journalism: the case against insincerity
Oswald, C. J. (2024) · Inquiry · doi:10.1080/0020174x.2024.2399253 · Cited by 1
“And third, by platforming (unqualified) detractors, this reporting risks eroding public trust in scientific institutions, specifically in their capacity to arrive at politically neutral answers to crucial questions (Gustafson and Rice 2020).”
BackgroundInfluentialMancera, R. T., & Rodrigo, E. M. (2024) · European Public & Social Innovation Review · doi:10.31637/epsir-2024-1392 · Cited by 1
“But sharing uncertainties is a very common complex process, and the effects vary due to factors like pre-existing opinions and motivated reasoning (Gustafson & Rice, 2020).”
Positive aspects of high-level waste disposal: what do German citizens think?
Seidl, R., Drögemüller, C., Krütli, P., & Walther, C. (2025) · Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences · doi:10.1080/1943815x.2025.2481035 · Cited by 1
“Similar to communicating risks and uncertainties (Broomell and Kane 2017; Gustafson and Rice 2020), disseminating information about benefits is a challenge (Peters et al. 2007).”
Hilliard, A. J., Sugden, N., Bass, K. M., & Gunter, C. (2025) · Journal of Science Communication · doi:10.22323/145120250526111229 · Cited by 1
Fostering trustworthy information: countering disinformation when there are no bare facts
Boumans, M., Ferwerda, J., Goldenberg, M. J., Leonelli, S., Russo, F., Traag, V., & Wardekker, A. (2025) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.250654 · Cited by 3
“On the other hand, making the discussion and potential disagreement among scientists more visible may reduce people’s trust in the scientific outcomes [57].”
Impact forecasting for humanitarianism: Opportunities and challenges
Baylis, K., & Lentz, E. (2025) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2512728122 · Cited by 1
Modality of Doubt and Certainty in Contemporary Russian Scientific Texts
Bazhenova, E., Karpova, T., Solovyova, N., et al. (2023) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-28086-3_7 · Cited by 1
Are AI safety and AI ethics memetic rivals?Preprint
Friedrich, D. (2023) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/3rpwt · Cited by 1
Uncertainty, expertise, and persuasion: A replication and extension of Karmarkar and Tormala (2010)Preprint
Løhre, E., Chandrashekar, S. P., Mayiwar, L., & Hærem, T. (2024) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/gjxyh · Cited by 1
Gerken, M. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198857273.005.0001
Public Scientific Testimony II
Gerken, M. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198857273.003.0007
Gerken, M. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198857273.002.0008
Gerken, M. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198857273.003.0003
Gerken, M. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198857273.003.0009
Gerken, M. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198857273.003.0006
Gerken, M. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198857273.003.0005
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
