TY - JOUR
T1 - Making sense of uncertainty
T2 - Advantages and disadvantages of providing an evaluative structure
AU - Dieckmann, Nathan F.
AU - Peters, Ellen
AU - Gregory, Robin
AU - Tusler, Martin
N1 - Funding Information:
We would like to acknowledge the generous support of the National Science Foundation that made this work possible: NSF Award #0725025 to Decision Research (Robin Gregory, PI) and NSF Award #0925008 to Decision Research (Nathan Dieckmann, PI). All views expressed in this paper are those of the authors alone.
PY - 2012/8/1
Y1 - 2012/8/1
N2 - In many decision contexts, there is uncertainty in the assessed probabilities and expected consequences of different actions. The fundamental goal for information providers is to present uncertainty in a way that is not overly complicated, yet sufficiently detailed to prompt decision-makers to think about the implications of this uncertainty for the decision at hand. In two experiments, we assess the pros and cons of providing an evaluative structure to facilitate the comprehension and use of uncertainty information and explore whether people who vary in numeracy perceive and use uncertainty in different ways. Participants were presented with scenarios and summary tables describing the anticipated consequences of different environmental-management actions. Our results suggest that different uncertainty formats may lead people to think in particular ways. Laypeople had an easier time understanding the general concept of uncertainty when an evaluative label was presented (e.g. uncertainty is High or Low). However, when asked about a specific possible outcome for an attribute, participants performed better when presented with numerical ranges. Our results also suggest that there appear to be advantages to using evaluative labels, in that they can highlight aspects of uncertainty information that may otherwise be overlooked in more complex numerical displays. However, the salience of evaluative labels appeared to cause some participants to put undue weight on this information, which resulted in value-inconsistent choices. The simplicity and power of providing an evaluative structure is a double-edged sword.
AB - In many decision contexts, there is uncertainty in the assessed probabilities and expected consequences of different actions. The fundamental goal for information providers is to present uncertainty in a way that is not overly complicated, yet sufficiently detailed to prompt decision-makers to think about the implications of this uncertainty for the decision at hand. In two experiments, we assess the pros and cons of providing an evaluative structure to facilitate the comprehension and use of uncertainty information and explore whether people who vary in numeracy perceive and use uncertainty in different ways. Participants were presented with scenarios and summary tables describing the anticipated consequences of different environmental-management actions. Our results suggest that different uncertainty formats may lead people to think in particular ways. Laypeople had an easier time understanding the general concept of uncertainty when an evaluative label was presented (e.g. uncertainty is High or Low). However, when asked about a specific possible outcome for an attribute, participants performed better when presented with numerical ranges. Our results also suggest that there appear to be advantages to using evaluative labels, in that they can highlight aspects of uncertainty information that may otherwise be overlooked in more complex numerical displays. However, the salience of evaluative labels appeared to cause some participants to put undue weight on this information, which resulted in value-inconsistent choices. The simplicity and power of providing an evaluative structure is a double-edged sword.
KW - ambiguity
KW - decision analysis
KW - evaluability
KW - risk communication
KW - uncertainty
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84864031759&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84864031759&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/13669877.2012.666760
DO - 10.1080/13669877.2012.666760
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84864031759
SN - 1366-9877
VL - 15
SP - 717
EP - 735
JO - Journal of Risk Research
JF - Journal of Risk Research
IS - 7
ER -