While uncertainty is central to science, many fear negative effects of communicating scientific uncertainties to the public, though research results about such effects are inconsistent. Therefore, we test the effects of four distinct uncertainty frame types (deficient, technical, scientific, consensus) on three outcomes (belief, credibility, behavioral intentions) across three science issues (climate change, GMO food labeling, machinery hazards) with an experiment using a national sample (N = 2,247) approximating U.S. census levels of age, education, and gender. We find portraying scientific findings using uncertainty frames usually does not have significant effects, with an occasional exception being small negative effects of consensus uncertainty.
AfifiW. A.WeinerJ. L. (2004). Toward a theory of motivated information management. Communication Theory, 14, 167-190.
2.
AklinM.UrpelainenJ. (2014). Perceptions of scientific dissent undermine public support for environmental policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 38, 173-177.
3.
AndersonA. A.ScheufeleD. A.BrossardD.CorleyE. A. (2012). The role of media and deference to scientific authority in cultivating trust in sources of information about emerging technologies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24, 225-237.
4.
AntillaL. (2005). Climate of scepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change. Global Environmental Change, 15, 338-352.
5.
BaileyA.GiangolaL.BoykoffM. T. (2014). How grammatical choice shapes media representations of climate (un)certainty. Environmental Communication, 8, 197-215.
6.
BambergS.MöserG. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psychosocial determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 14-25.
7.
BenjaminD. M.BudescuD. V. (2018). The role of type and source of uncertainty on the processing of climate models projections. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 403. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00403
8.
BennettW. L. (1996). An introduction to journalism norms and representations of politics. Political Communication, 13, 373-384.
9.
BerloD. K.LemertJ. B.MertzR. J. (1969). Dimensions for evaluating the acceptability of message sources. Public Opinion Quarterly, 33, 563-576.
10.
BinderA. R.HillbackE. D.BrossardD. (2016). Conflict or caveats? Effects of media portrayals of scientific uncertainty on audience perceptions of new technologies. Risk Analysis, 36, 831-846.
11.
BolsenT.DruckmanJ. N. (2015). Counteracting the politicization of science. Journal of Communication, 65, 745-769.
12.
BolsenT.DruckmanJ. N.CookF. L. (2014). The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior, 36, 235-262.
13.
BoykoffM. T.BoykoffJ. M. (2004). Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14, 125-136.
14.
BrashersD. E. (2001). Communication and uncertainty management. Journal of Communication, 51, 477-497.
15.
BrechmanJ.LeeC.CappellaJ. N. (2009). Lost in translation? A comparison of cancer genetics reporting in the press release and its subsequent coverage in the press. Science Communication, 30, 453-474.
16.
BroomellS. B.KaneP. B. (2017). Public perception and communication of scientific uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146, 286-304.
17.
CabantousL.HiltonD.KunreutherH.Michel-KerjanE. (2011). Is imprecise knowledge better than conflicting expertise? Evidence from insurers’ decisions in the United States. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 42, 211-232.
18.
CacciatoreM. A.ScheufeleD. A.IyengarS. (2016) The end of framing as we know it . . . and the future of media effects. Mass Communication and Society, 19, 7-23. doi:10.1080/15205436.2015.1068811
19.
CarpenterD. M.GerykL. L.ChenA. T.NaglerR. H.DieckmannN. F.HanP. K. (2016). Conflicting health information: A critical research need. Health Expectations, 19, 1173-1182.
ChangC. (2015). Motivated processing: How people perceive news covering novel or contradictory health research findings. Science Communication, 37, 602-634.
22.
ClarkeC. E.DixonG. N.HoltonA.McKeeverB. W. (2015). Including “Evidentiary Balance” in news media coverage of vaccine risk. Health Communication, 30, 461-472.
23.
CorbettJ. B.DurfeeJ. L. (2004). Testing public (un) certainty of science: Media representations of global warming. Science Communication, 26, 129-151.
24.
CornerA.WhitmarshL.XeniasD. (2012). Uncertainty, scepticism and attitudes towards climate change: Biased assimilation and attitude polarisation. Climatic Change, 114, 463-478.
25.
DieckmannN. F.GregoryR.PetersE.HartmanR. (2017). Seeing what you want to see: How imprecise uncertainty ranges enhance motivated reasoning. Risk Analysis, 37, 471-486.
26.
DieckmannN. F.JohnsonB. B.GregoryR.MayorgaM.HanP. K.SlovicP. (2017). Public perceptions of expert disagreement: Bias and incompetence or a complex and random world?Public Understanding of Science, 26, 325-338.
27.
DixonG. N.ClarkeC. E. (2013). Heightening uncertainty around certain science: Media coverage, false balance, and the autism-vaccine controversy. Science Communication, 35, 358-382.
28.
EbelingM. F. (2008). Mediating uncertainty: Communicating the financial risks of nanotechnologies. Science Communication, 29, 335-361.
29.
ElderL.GreeneS.LizotteM. K. (2018). The gender gap on public opinion towards genetically modified foods. Social Science Journal, 55, 500-509.
30.
EntmanR. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58.
31.
FrewerL. J.HowardC.ShepherdR. (1998). The influence of initial attitudes on responses to communication about genetic engineering in food production. Agriculture and Human Values, 15, 15-30.
32.
FrewerL. J.MilesS.BrenanM.KuznesofS.NessM.RitsonC. (2002). Public preferences for informed choice under conditions of risk uncertainty. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 363-372.
33.
GustafsonA.RiceR. E. (2018, November). Resolving the competing perspectives on the effects of uncertainty frames in science communication. Paper presented at the National Communication Association convention, Salt Lake City, UT. Retrieved from https://osf.io/xb4ek/
34.
HackingI. (1975). The emergence of probability: A philosophical study of early ideas about probability, induction and statistical inference. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
35.
HanP. K.MoserR. P.KleinW. M. (2007). Perceived ambiguity about cancer prevention recommendations: Associations with cancer-related perceptions and behaviours in a US population survey. Health Expectations, 10, 321-336.
36.
HartP. S.FeldmanL. (2016). The influence of climate change efficacy messages and efficacy beliefs on intended political participation. PLoS One, 11, e0157658.
37.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
38.
HornseyM. J.HarrisE. A.BainP. G.FieldingK. S. (2016). Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change, 6, 622-626.
39.
HovlandC. I.JanisJ. L.KelleyH. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
40.
JacquesP. J.DunlapR. E.FreemanM. (2008). The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism. Environmental Politics, 17, 349-385.
41.
JensenJ. D. (2008). Scientific uncertainty in news coverage of cancer research: Effects of hedging on scientists’ and journalists’ credibility. Human Communication Research, 34, 347-369.
42.
JensenJ. D.CarcioppoloN.KingA. J.BernatJ. K.DavisL.YaleR.SmithJ. (2011). Including limitations in news coverage of cancer research: Effects of news hedging on fatalism, medical skepticism, patient trust, and backlash. Journal of Health Communication, 16, 486-503.
43.
JensenJ. D.HurleyR. J. (2012). Conflicting stories about public scientific controversies: Effects of news convergence and divergence on scientists’ credibility. Public Understanding of Science, 21, 689-704.
44.
JensenJ. D.PokharelM.ScherrC. L.KingA. J.BrownN.JonesC. (2017). Communicating uncertain science to the public: How amount and source of uncertainty impact fatalism, backlash, and overload. Risk Analysis, 37, 40-51.
45.
JohnsonB. B.NakayachiK. (2017). Examining associations between citizens’ beliefs and attitudes about uncertainty and their earthquake risk judgments, preparedness intentions, and mitigation policy support in Japan and the United States. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 22, 37-45.
46.
JohnsonB. B.SlovicP. (1995). Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: Initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust. Risk Analysis, 15, 485-494.
47.
JohnsonB. B.SlovicP. (1998). Lay views on uncertainty in environmental health risk assessment. Journal of Risk Research, 1, 261-279.
48.
KahanD. M.Jenkins-SmithH.BramanD. (2011). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14, 147-174.
KeohaneR. O.LaneM.OppenheimerM. (2014). The ethics of scientific communication under uncertainty. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 13, 343-368. doi:10.1177/1470594X14538570
51.
KoehlerD. J. (2016). Can journalistic “false balance” distort public perception of consensus in expert opinion?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22, 24-38.
52.
KuhaM. (2009). Uncertainty about causes and effects of global warming in US news coverage before and after Bali. Language and Ecology, 2(4), 1-18.
53.
KuhnK. M. (2000). Message format and audience values: Interactive effects of uncertainty information and environmental attitudes on perceived risk. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 41-51.
54.
KuhnT. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
55.
LangerT. H.EbbesenM. K.KordestaniA. (2015). Experimental analysis of occupational whole-body vibration exposure of agricultural tractor with large square baler. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 47, 79-83.
56.
LeeC. J.ScheufeleD. A. (2006). The influence of knowledge and deference toward scientific authority: A media effects model for public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83, 819-834.
LewandowskyS.GignacG. E.VaughanS. (2013). The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nature Climate Change, 3, 399-404.
59.
LingsS.Leboeuf-YdeC. (2000). Whole-body vibration and low back pain: A systematic, critical review of the epidemiological literature 1992-1999. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 73, 290-297.
60.
LuskJ. L.HouseL. O.ValliC.JaegerS. R.MooreM.MorrowJ. L.TraillW. B. (2004). Effect of information about benefits of biotechnology on consumer acceptance of genetically modified food: Evidence from experimental auctions in the United States, England, and France. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 31, 179-204.
61.
McCroskeyJ. C. (1966). Scales for the measurement of ethos. Speech Monographs, 33, 65-72.
62.
McFaddenB. R.LuskJ. L. (2017). Effects of the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard: Willingness to pay for labels that communicate the presence or absence of genetic modification. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 40, 259-275.
63.
McGuireW. J. (2012). McGuire’s classic input-output framework for constructing persuasive messages. In RiceR. E.AtkinC. K. (Eds.), Public communication campaigns (4th ed., pp. 133-145). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
64.
MilesS.FrewerL. J. (2003). Public perception of scientific uncertainty in relation to food hazards. Journal of Risk Research, 6, 267-283.
65.
MortonT. A.RabinovichA.MarshallD.BretschneiderP. (2011). The future that may (or may not) come: How framing changes responses to uncertainty in climate change communications. Global Environmental Change, 21, 103-109.
66.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2013). Mplus 7.11. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
67.
NabiR. L.GustafsonA.JensenR. (2018). Framing climate change: Exploring the role of emotion in generating advocacy behavior. Science Communication, 40, 442-468.
68.
NanX.DailyK. (2015). Biased assimilation and need for closure: Examining the effects of mixed blogs on vaccine-related beliefs. Journal of Health Communication, 20, 462-471.
69.
NickersonR. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175-220.
70.
O’NeillS.WilliamsH. T. P.KurzT.WiersmaB.BoykoffM. (2015). Dominant frames in legacy and social media coverage of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Nature Climate Change, 5, 380-385. doi:10.1038/nclimate2535
71.
OreskesN.ConwayE. M. (2011). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.
72.
PainterJ.AsheT. (2012). Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007-10. Environmental Research Letters, 7, 044005.
73.
PascholdH. W.SergeevA. V. (2009). Whole-body vibration knowledge survey of US occupational safety and health professionals. Journal of Safety Research, 40, 171-176.
74.
PopperK. (1961). The logic of scientific discovery. New York, NY: Science Editions.
75.
PopperK. R. (1959). The propensity interpretation of probability. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 10(37), 25-42.
76.
RabinovichA.MortonT. A. (2012). Unquestioned answers or unanswered questions: Beliefs about science guide responses to uncertainty in climate change risk communication. Risk Analysis, 32, 992-1002.
77.
RetzbachA.MaierM. (2015). Communicating scientific uncertainty: Media effects on public engagement with science. Communication Research, 42, 429-456.
78.
RiceR. E.GustafsonA.HoffmanZ. (2018). Frequent but accurate: A closer look at uncertainty and opinion divergence in climate change print news. Environmental Communication, 12, 301-321.
79.
ScheufeleD. A.IyengarS. (2017). The state of framing research: A call for new directions. In KenskiK.JamiesonK. H. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political communication theories (pp. 619-632). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
80.
ShanteauJ. (2000). Why do experts disagree? In GreenB. (Ed.), Risk behaviour and risk management in business life (pp. 186-196). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
81.
SmithsonM. (1999). Conflict aversion: Preference for ambiguity vs conflict in sources and evidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, 179-198.
82.
StockingS. H. (1999). How journalists deal with scientific uncertainty. In FriedmanS. M.DunwoodyS.RogersC. L. (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 23-41). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
83.
StockingS. H. (2010). Uncertainty in science communication. In PriestS. H. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science and technology communication (pp. 919-921). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
84.
StockingS. H.HolsteinL. W. (1993). Constructing and reconstructing scientific ignorance—Ignorance claims in science and journalism. Knowledge-Creation Diffusion Utilization, 15, 186-210.
85.
van der LindenS.LeiserowitzA. A.FeinbergG. D.MaibachE. W. (2015). The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence. PLoS One, 10, 0118489.
86.
van der LindenS.LeiserowitzA.MaibachE. (2018). Scientific agreement can neutralize politicization of facts. Nature Human Behaviour, 2, 2-3.
87.
van der LindenS.LeiserowitzA.RosenthalS.MaibachE. (2017). Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Global Challenges, 1(2), 1-7.
88.
WinterS.KrämerN. C.RösnerL.NeubaumG. (2015). Don’t keep it (too) simple: How textual representations of scientific uncertainty affect laypersons’ attitudes. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 34, 251-272.
89.
ZehrS. C. (2000). Public representations of scientific uncertainty about global climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 85-103.
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.
