Uncertainty, though integral to scientific practice and advancement, is routinely omitted from science communication. While extensive study has uncovered the effect of this in politicized scientific fields, its influence in unpoliticized sciences is murkier. This survey-experiment study in the USA investigates audience perceptions of communicator trustworthiness when reading excerpts of neuroimaging journalism portraying the field as (a) uncertainty-filled or (b) certain enough to be on the cusp of enabling mind-reading. Findings bolster hitherto mixed results and (exploratorily) suggest perceived communicator trustworthiness may hinge on an author’s uncertainty matching audience members’ tolerance for uncertainty—when they score high in science literacy.
AkinHScheufeleDA (2017) Overview of the science of science communication. In: JamiesonKHKahanDMScheufeleDA (eds) The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication. Oxford University Press, pp.24–33.
2.
AltenmüllerMSNudingSGollwitzerM (2021) No harm in being self-corrective: Self-criticism and reform intentions increase researchers’ epistemic trustworthiness and credibility in the eyes of the public. Public Understanding of Science30(8): 962–976.
3.
BerkowitzL (1984) Some effects of thoughts on anti- and prosocial influences of media events: A cognitive neoassociation analysis. Psychological Bulletin95(3): 410–427.
4.
BesleyJCLeeNMPressgroveG (2020) Reassessing the variables used to measure public perceptions of scientists. Science Communication43(1): 166–168.
5.
BlomR (2026) News expectancy violations and emotions. In: Soto-SanfielMTSalojärviV (eds) The Handbook of Journalism and Emotion. Wiley, pp.379–389.
6.
Brown JarreauPCancellareIACarmichaelBJ, et al. (2019) Using selfies to challenge public stereotypes of scientists. PLoS One14(5): e0216625.
7.
CarlNBillariFC (2014) Generalized trust and intelligence in the United States. PLoS One9(3): e91786.
8.
CarletonRN (2012) The intolerance of uncertainty construct in the context of anxiety disorders: Theoretical and practical perspectives. Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics12(8): 937–947. https://doi.org/101586/ern.12.82
9.
CarletonRNNortonMAPJAsmundsonGJG (2007) Fearing the unknown: A short version of the intolerance of uncertainty scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders21(1): 105–117.
10.
DograNGiordanoJFranceN (2007) Cultural diversity teaching and issues of uncertainty: The findings of a qualitative study. BMC Medical Education7: 8.
11.
DriesCMcDowellMRebitschekFG, et al. (2024) When evidence changes: Communicating uncertainty protects against a loss of trust. Public Understanding of Science33(6): 777–794.
12.
EinsiedelEThorneB (1999) Public responses to uncertainty. In: FriedmanSMDunwoodySRogersCL (eds) Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.43–57.
13.
EntmanRM (1993) Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication43: 51–58.
14.
FriedmanSMDunwoodySRogersCL (1999) Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15.
GillmanASScharnetzkiLBoydP, et al. (2022) Perceptions and tolerance of uncertainty: Relationship to trust in COVID-19 health information and vaccine hesitancy. Journal of Behavioral Medicine46: 40–53.
16.
GuoZLiuKChenM (2025) A meta-analysis synthesizing the effects of three uncertainty types in science communication. Science Communication47(5): 633–669.
17.
GustafsonARiceRE (2020) A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science communication. Public Understanding of Science29(6): 614–633.
18.
HendriksFJucksR (2020) Does scientific uncertainty in news articles affect readers’ trust and decision-making?Health and Science Controversies in the Digital World: News, Mis/Disinformation and Public Engagement8(2): 401–412.
19.
HendriksFKienhuesDBrommeR (2016) Disclose your flaws! Admission positively affects the perceived trustworthiness of an expert science blogger. Studies in Communication Sciences16(2): 124–131.
20.
HodsonJReidDVeletsianosG, et al. (2022) Heuristic responses to pandemic uncertainty: Practicable communication strategies of “reasoned transparency” to aid public reception of changing science. Public Understanding of Science32(4): 428–441.
21.
IchikawaK (2021) The trouble with brain scans: An aspiring cognitive scientist faces the sketchy truth about fMRI. Nautilus Magazine, 18December. Available at: https://nautil.us/the-trouble-with-brain-scans-238164
22.
JensenJDHurleyRJ (2010) Conflicting stories about public scientific controversies: Effects of news convergence and divergence on scientists’ credibility. Public Understanding of Science21(6): 689–704.
23.
JohnS (2018) Epistemic trust and the ethics of science communication: Against transparency, openness, sincerity and honesty. Social Epistemology32(2): 75–87.
24.
KahanDM (2017) “Ordinary science intelligence”: A science-comprehension measure for study of risk and science communication, with notes on evolution and climate change. Journal of Risk Research20(8): 995–1016.
25.
KalkeKStuddHScherrCL (2021) The communication of uncertainty in health: A scoping review. Patient Education and Counseling104(8): 1945–1961.
26.
KitcherP (1982) Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. MIT Press.
27.
KovakaK (2019) Climate change denial and beliefs about science. Synthese198: 2355–2374.
28.
MaierMMildeJPostS, et al. (2016) Communicating scientific evidence: Scientists’, journalists’ and audiences’ expectations and evaluations regarding the representation of scientific uncertainty. Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research41(3): 239–264.
29.
OphirYJamiesonKH (2021) The effects of media narratives about failure and discoveries in science on beliefs about and support for science. Public Understanding of Science3(8): 1008–1023.
30.
OreskesNConwayEM (2010) Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Bloomsbury Press.
31.
OsborneJAllchinD (2024) Science literacy in the twenty-first century: Informed trust and the competent outsider. International Journal of Science Education47(15–16): 2134–2155.
32.
PriceVTewksburyD (1997) News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing. In: BarnettGABosterFJ (eds) Progress in Communication Sciences: Advances in Persuasion (Vol. 13). Greenwich, pp.173–212.
33.
QinHXieZShangH, et al. (2024) The mass public’s science literacy and co-production during the COVID-19 pandemic: Empirical evidence from 140 cities in China. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications11: 834.
34.
RatcliffCLWickeR (2022) How the public evaluates media representations of uncertain science: An integrated explanatory framework. Public Understanding of Science32(4): 410–427.
35.
RowanKE (1999) Effective explanation of uncertain and complex science. In: FriedmanSMDunwoodySRogersCL (eds) Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.201–223.
36.
SmithsonMJ (2008) Social theories of ignorance. In: ProctorRNSchiebingerL (eds) Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance. Stanford University Press, pp.209–229.
YapAJohanesenPWalshC (2023) Moderators uncertainty tolerance (UT) in healthcare: A systematic review. Advances in Health Sciences Education28(5): 1409–1440.
39.
ZehrSC (1999) Scientists’ representations of uncertainty. In: FriedmanSMDunwoodySRogersCL (eds) Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.3–21.
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.
