Scientific findings can be overturned when new evidence arises. This study examines how communicating and explaining uncertainty around scientific findings affect trust in the communicator when findings change. In an online experiment (N = 800, convenience sample), participants read a fictitious statement from a public health authority announcing that there was no link between a new COVID-19 vaccine and heart muscle inflammation. The authority communicated (1) no uncertainty, (2) uncertainty without giving a reason, (3) uncertainty due to imprecision, or (4) uncertainty due to incomplete accounting of patients. Participants were then informed that the authority’s statement was no longer correct as new data showed a link between the vaccine and heart muscle inflammation. Participants rated the authority’s trustworthiness before and after the evidence update. Our findings indicate that communicating uncertainty buffers against a loss of trust when evidence changes. Moreover, explaining uncertainty does not appear to harm trust.
BatteuxEBilovichAJohnsonSGTuckettD (2022) Negative consequences of failing to communicate uncertainties during a pandemic: An online randomised controlled trial on COVID-19 vaccines. BMJ Open12(9): e051352.
2.
BurgoonJK (1993) Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology12(1–2): 30–48.
3.
BurgoonMDenningVPRobertsL (2002) Language expectancy theory. In: DillardJPPfauM (eds) The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 117–136.
4.
ChoiWStviliaB (2015) Web credibility assessment: Conceptualization, operationalization, variability, and models. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology66(12): 2399–2414.
5.
CollinsRMandelD (2019) Cultivating credibility with probability words and numbers. Judgment and Decision Making14(6): 683–695.
DarkePRAshworthLMainKJ (2010) Great expectations and broken promises: Misleading claims, product failure, expectancy disconfirmation and consumer distrust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science38(3): 347–362.
DieckmannNFMauroRSlovicP (2010) The effects of presenting imprecise probabilities in intelligence forecasts. Risk Analysis: An International Journal30(6): 987–1001.
10.
DohleSWingenTSchreiberM (2020) Acceptance and adoption of protective measures during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of trust in politics and trust in science. Social Psychological Bulletin15(4): 1–23.
11.
FiskeSTDupreeC (2014) Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111(Suppl. 4): 13593–13597.
12.
FiskeSTCuddyAJGlickP (2007) Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences11(2): 77–83.
13.
GrettonJDMeyersEAWalkerACFugelsangJAKoehlerDJ (2021) A brief forewarning intervention overcomes negative effects of salient changes in COVID-19 guidance. Judgment and Decision Making16(6): 1549–1574.
14.
GustafsonARiceRE (2020) A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science communication. Public Understanding of Science29(6): 614–633.
15.
GuyattGOxmanADAklEAKunzRVistGBrozekJ, et al. (2011) Grade guidelines: 1. Introduction — GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology64(4): 383–394.
16.
HanPKZikmund-FisherBJDuarteCWKnausMBlackASchererAM, et al. (2018) Communication of scientific uncertainty about a novel pandemic health threat: Ambiguity aversion and its mechanisms. Journal of Health Communication23(5): 435–444.
17.
HendriksFKienhuesD (2019) Science understanding between scientific literacy and trust: Contributions from psychological and educational research. In: LeßmöllmannADascalMGloningT (eds) Science Communication. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 29–50.
18.
HendriksFDistelBEngelkeKMWestmattelmannDWintterlinF (2021) Methodological and practical challenges of interdisciplinary trust research. In: BlöbaumB (ed.) Trust and Communication. Cham: Springer, pp. 29–57.
19.
JenkinsSCHarrisAJLarkRM (2017) Maintaining credibility when communicating uncertainty: The role of communication format. In: Proceedings of the 39th annual meeting of the cognitive science society (eds GunzelmannGHowesATenbrinkTDavelaarE), London, pp. 582–587. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
20.
JenkinsSCHarrisAJLarkRM (2019) When unlikely outcomes occur: The role of communication format in maintaining communicator credibility. Journal of Risk Research22(5): 537–554.
21.
JensenJD (2008) Scientific uncertainty in news coverage of cancer research: Effects of hedging on scientists’ and journalists’ credibility. Human Communication Research34(3): 347–369.
22.
JohnsonBBSlovicP (1995) Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: Initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust. Risk Analysis15(4): 485–494.
23.
KerrJRvan der BlesAMSchneiderCDryhurstSChopuriaVFreemanAL, et al. (2021) The effects of communicating uncertainty around statistics on public trust: An international study. MedRxiv. Epub ahead of print 20September. DOI: 10.1101/2021.09.27.21264202.
24.
KrepsSEKrinerDL (2020) Model uncertainty, political contestation, and public trust in science: Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic. Science Advances6(43): eabd4563.
25.
LandrumAREavesBSShaftoPJr (2015) Learning to trust and trusting to learn: A theoretical framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences19(3): 109–111.
MetzgerMJ (2007) Making sense of credibility on the Web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology58(13): 2078–2091.
29.
NakayachiKJohnsonBBKoketsuK (2018) Effects of acknowledging uncertainty about earthquake risk estimates on San Francisco bay area residents’ beliefs, attitudes, and intentions. Risk Analysis38(4): 666–679.
30.
NivetteARibeaudDMurrayASteinhoffABechtigerLHeppU, et al. (2021) Non-compliance with COVID-19-related public health measures among young adults in Switzerland: Insights from a longitudinal cohort study. Social Science & Medicine268: 113370.
31.
OliverRL (1977) Effect of expectation and disconfirmation on postexposure product evaluations: An alternative interpretation. Journal of Applied Psychology62(4): 480.
32.
Pena-MarinJWuR (2019) Disconfirming expectations: Incorrect imprecise (vs. precise) estimates increase source trustworthiness and consumer loyalty. Journal of Consumer Psychology29(4): 623–641.
33.
PetrovaDGarcia-RetameroRCatenaAVan der PligtJ (2016) To screen or not to screen: What factors influence complex screening decisions?Journal of Experimental Psychology22(2): 247.
34.
RafkinCShreekumarAVautreyPL (2021) When guidance changes: Government stances and public beliefs. Journal of Public Economics196: 104319.
35.
RatcliffCLWickeR (2023) How the public evaluates media representations of uncertain science: An integrated explanatory framework. Public Understanding of Science32(4): 410–427.
36.
ReifAKneiselTSchäferMTaddickenM (2020) Why are scientific experts perceived as trustworthy? Emotional assessment within TV and YouTube videos. Media and Communication8(1): 191–205.
37.
RetzbachAMaierM (2015) Communicating scientific uncertainty: Media effects on public engagement with science. Communication Research42(3): 429–456.
38.
SchneiderCFreemanASpiegelhalterDvan der LindenS (2022) The effects of communicating scientific uncertainty on trust and decision making in a public health context. Judgment and Decision Making17(4): 849–882.
39.
TeigenKHBrunW (1995) Yes, but it is uncertain: Direction and communicative intention of verbal probabilistic terms. Acta Psychologica88(3): 233–258.
40.
TenneyERMacCounRJSpellmanBAHastieR (2007) Calibration trumps confidence as a basis for witness credibility. Psychological Science18(1): 46–50.
41.
TingleyDYamamotoTHiroseKKeeleLImaiK (2014) Mediation: R package for causal mediation analysis. Journal of Statistical Software59(5): 1–38.
42.
van der BlesAMvan der LindenSFreemanALSpiegelhalterD (2020) The effects of communicating uncertainty on public trust in facts and numbers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117(14): 7672–7683.
43.
van der BlesAMvan der LindenSFreemanALMitchellJGalvaoABZavalL, et al. (2019) Communicating uncertainty about facts, numbers and science. Royal Society Open Science6(5): 181870.
44.
ZhangYSDYoung LeslieHSharafaddin-ZadehYNoelsKLouNM (2021) Public health messages about face masks early in the COVID-19 pandemic: Perceptions of and impacts on Canadians. Journal of Community Health46(5): 903–912.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
