This systematic literature review presents an interdisciplinary overview of theories tested in experiments on the effects of communicating uncertainty. Using a machine learning-aided pipeline, we selected and manually coded 413 experimental studies. We discuss core assumptions and predictions of the main theories of uncertainty communication. Most normative theorizing (e.g., Bayesianism, Expected Utility Theory) is rooted in Probability Theory, which is only suitable for addressing shallow and medium uncertainty. This explains the underrepresentation of experimental research into deep uncertainty communication. To foster a more comprehensive understanding of uncertainty communication effects, we identify research questions and theories deserving greater attention.
BarbeyA. K.SlomanS. A. (2007). Base-rate respect: From ecological rationality to dual processes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(3), 241–297. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X07001653
2.
BernoulliD. (1738). Specimen theoriae novae de mensura sortis. Commentarii Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis Petropolitanae, 5, 175–192.
3.
BevanL. D. (2022). The ambiguities of uncertainty: A review of uncertainty frameworks relevant to the assessment of environmental change. Futures, 137, 102919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2022.102919
4.
BlalockS. J.SageA.BitontiM.PatelP.DickinsonR.KnappP. (2016). Communicating information concerning potential medication harms and benefits: What gist do numbers convey?Patient Education and Counseling, 99(12), 1964–1970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2016.07.022
5.
Blanch-HartiganD.van EedenM.VerdamM. G. E.HanP. K. J.SmetsE. M. A.HillenM. A. (2019). Effects of communication about uncertainty and oncologist gender on the physician-patient relationship. Patient Education and Counseling, 102(9), 1613–1620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2019.05.002
6.
Böcherer-LinderK.EichlerA. (2017). The impact of visualizing nested sets. An empirical study on tree diagrams and unit squares. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 2026. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02026
7.
Böcherer-LinderK.EichlerA. (2019). How to improve performance in Bayesian inference tasks: A comparison of five visualizations. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 267. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00267
BradacJ. J. (2001). Theory comparison: Uncertainty reduction, problematic integration, uncertainty management, and other curious constructs. Journal of Communication, 51(3), 456–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02891.x
10.
BraseG. L. (2021). What facilitates Bayesian reasoning? A crucial test of ecological rationality versus nested sets hypotheses. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28(2), 703–709. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01763-2
11.
BraseG. L.HillW. T. (2015). Good fences make for good neighbors but bad science: A review of what improves Bayesian reasoning and why. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 340. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00340
BudescuD. V.BroomellS.PorH. H. (2009). Improving communication of uncertainty in the reports of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Psychological Science, 20(3), 299–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02284.x
14.
CampbellM.EganM.LorencT.BondL.PophamF.FentonC.BenzevalM. (2014). Considering methodological options for reviews of theory: Illustrated by a review of theories linking income and health. Systematic Reviews, 3(1), Article 114. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-114
15.
CasscellsW.SchoenbergerA.GraboysT. B. (1989). Interpretation by physicians of clinical laboratory results. Medical Intelligence, 299(18), 999–1001.
16.
CosmidesL.ToobyJ. (1996). Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty. Cognition, 58(1), 1–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(95)00664-8
17.
DavidsonP. (1991). Is probability theory relevant for uncertainty? A post Keynesian perspective. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.129
18.
De GrootK.ThurikR. (2018). Disentangling risk and uncertainty: When risk-taking measures are not about risk. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 2194. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02194
19.
DerbyshireJ. (2017). Potential surprise theory as a theoretical foundation for scenario planning. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 124, 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.05.008
20.
DesrochersJ.François OutrevilleJ. (2020). Perceived risk and insurance decision taking for small losses. Journal of Risk Research, 23(4), 447–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2019.1591485
21.
DoyleE. E. H.JohnstonD. M.SmithR.PatonD. (2019). Communicating model uncertainty for natural hazards: A qualitative systematic thematic review. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 33, 449–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.10.023
22.
DoyleE. E. H.McclureJ.PatonD.JohnstonD. M. (2014). Uncertainty and decision making: Volcanic crisis scenarios. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 10, 75–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.07.006
23.
EichlerA.Böcherer-LinderK.VogelM. (2020). Different visualizations cause different strategies when dealing with Bayesian situations. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 1897. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01897
24.
EllsbergD. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75(4), 643–669.
25.
EvansJ. S. B. T.StanovichK. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685
26.
FishburnP. C. (1981). Subjective expected utility: A review of normative theories. Theory and Decision, 13(2), 139–199.
27.
Garcia-RetameroR.CokelyE. T.HoffrageU. (2015). Visual aids improve diagnostic inferences and metacognitive judgment calibration. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 932. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00932
28.
GeelsF. W. (2007). Feelings of discontent and the promise of middle range theory for STS: Examples from technology dynamics. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 32(6), 627–651. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243907303597
29.
GigerenzerG.HoffrageU. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review, 102(4), 684–704.
30.
GigerenzerG.HoffrageU. (2007). The role of representation in Bayesian reasoning: Correcting common misconceptions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(3), 264–267.
31.
GómezY.Martínez-MolésV.VilaJ. (2016). Spanish regulation for labeling of financial products: A behavioral-experimental analysis. Economia Politica, 33(3), 355–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40888-016-0037-z
32.
GrayotJ. D. (2020). Dual process theories in behavioral economics and neuroeconomics: A critical review. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 11(1), 105–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-019-00446-9
33.
GreenS. L. (2002). Rational choice theory: An overview. Baylor University.
34.
GustafsonA.RiceR. E. (2019). The effects of uncertainty frames in three science communication topics. Science Communication, 41(6), 679–706. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019870811
35.
GustafsonA.RiceR. E. (2020). A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 29(6), 614–633. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520942122
36.
HandM. S.WibbenmeyerM. J.CalkinD. E.ThompsonM. P. (2015). Risk preferences, probability weighting, and strategy tradeoffs in wildfire management. Risk Analysis, 35(10), 1876–1891. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12457
37.
HarlessD. W.CamererC. F. (1994). The predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories. Econometrica, 62(6), 1251–1289.
38.
HarringtonN. G.KerrA. M. (2017). Rethinking risk: Prospect theory application in health message framing research. Health Communication, 32(2), 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2015.1110004
Jefferies-SewellK.SharmaS.GaleT. M.HawleyC. J.GeorgiouG. J.LawsK. R. (2015). To admit or not to admit? The effect of framing on risk assessment decision making in psychiatrists. Journal of Mental Health, 24(1), 20–23. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638237.2014.951477
42.
JensenJ. D. (2008). Scientific uncertainty in news coverage of cancer research: Effects of hedging on scientists’ and journalists’ credibility. Human Communication Research, 34(3), 347–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00324.x
43.
JohnsonE. D.TubauE. (2013). Words, numbers, & numeracy: Diminishing individual differences in Bayesian reasoning. Learning and Individual Differences, 28, 34–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.09.004
44.
KadvanyJ. (1996). Taming chance: Risk and the quantification of uncertainty. Policy Sciences, 29(1), 1–27.
45.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
46.
KalkeK.StuddH.ScherrC. L. (2021). The communication of uncertainty in health: A scoping review. Patient Education and Counseling, 104(8), 1945–1961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2021.01.034
47.
KnightF. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Harper & Row.
48.
KolmogorovA. N. (1956). Foundations of the theory of probability: Second English edition. Courier Dover Publications.
49.
KwakkelJ. H.WalkerW. E.MarchauV. A. W. J. (2010). Classifying and communicating uncertainties in model-based policy analysis. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, 10(4), 299–315.
50.
LasswellH. D. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In BrysonL. (Ed.), The communication of ideas (pp. 37–52). Harper & Row.
51.
LejarragaT.HertwigR. (2021). How experimental methods shaped views on human competence and rationality. Psychological Bulletin, 147(6), 535–564. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000324
52.
LejarragaT.PachurT.FreyR.HertwigR. (2016). Decisions from experience: From monetary to medical gambles. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29(1), 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1877
53.
LesageE.NavarreteG.de NeysW. (2013). Evolutionary modules and Bayesian facilitation: The role of general cognitive resources. Thinking & Reasoning, 19(1), 27–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2012.713177
LipkusI. M.PetersE. (2009). Understanding the role of numeracy in health: Proposed theoretical framework and practical insights. Health Education & Behavior, 36(6), 1065–1081. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198109341533
56.
LiuB. F.BartzL.DukeN. (2016). Communicating crisis uncertainty: A review of the knowledge gaps. Public Relations Review, 42(3), 479–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.03.003
57.
LuanS.RebJ.GigerenzerG. (2019). Ecological rationality: Fast-and-frugal heuristics for managerial decision making under uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 62(6), 1735–1759. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.0172
58.
MaceachrenA. M.RothR. E.O’BrienJ.LiB.SwingleyD.GaheganM. (2012). Visual semiotics & uncertainty visualization: An empirical study. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 18(12), 2496–2505. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2012.279
59.
MaierH. R.GuillaumeJ. H. A.DeldenH.Van RiddellG. A.HaasnootM.KwakkelJ. H. (2016). An uncertain future, deep uncertainty, scenarios, robustness and adaptation: How do they fit together ?Environmental Modelling & Software, 81, 154–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.03.014
60.
MandelD. (2007). Nested sets theory, full stop: Explaining performance on Bayesian inference tasks without dual-systems assumptions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(3), 275–276.
61.
MartireK. A.KempR. I.WatkinsI.SayleM. A.NewellB. R. (2013). The expression and interpretation of uncertain forensic science evidence: Verbal equivalence, evidence strength, and the weak evidence effect. Law and Human Behavior, 37(3), 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000027
62.
PageM. J.McKenzieJ. E.BossuytP. M.BoutronI.HoffmannT. C.MulrowC. D.ShamseerL.TetzlaffJ. M.AklE. A.BrennanS. E.ChouR.GlanvilleJ.GrimshawJ. M.HróbjartssonA.LaluM. M.LiT.LoderE. W.Mayo-WilsonE.McDonaldS.MoherD. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), Article 89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4
ReaniM.DaviesA.PeekN.JayC. (2019). Evidencing how experience and problem format affect probabilistic reasoning through interaction analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 1548. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01548
65.
RennO.KlinkeA.Van AsseltM. (2011). Coping with complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity in risk governance: A synthesis. Ambio, 40(2), 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-010-0134-0
66.
RenooijS.WittemanC. (1999). Talking probabilities: Communicating probabilistic information with words and numbers. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 22(3), 169–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0888-613X(99)00027-4
ReynaV. F.MillsB. (2007). Converging evidence supports fuzzy-trace theory’s nested sets hypothesis, but not the frequency hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(3), 241–297. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X07001872
69.
RosenN. O.KnäuperB. (2009). A little uncertainty goes a long way: State and trait differences in uncertainty interact to increase information seeking but also increase worry. Health Communication, 24(3), 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410230902804125
70.
SavageL. J. (1954). Foundations of statistics. John Wiley.
71.
SavelliS.JoslynS. (2013). The advantages of predictive interval forecasts for non-expert users and the impact of visualizations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(4), 527–541. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2932
72.
SeuringS.YawarS. A.LandA.KhalidR. U.SauerP. C. (2021). The application of theory in literature reviews—Illustrated with examples from supply chain management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 41(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-04-2020-0247
73.
SevertsonD. J.VatovecC. (2012). The theory-based influence of map features on risk beliefs: Self-reports of what is seen and understood for maps depicting an environmental health hazard. Journal of Health Communication, 17(7), 836–856. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2011.650933
74.
SimonH. (2000). Bounded rationality in social science: Today and tomorrow. Mind & Society, 1(1), 25–39.
75.
SirotaM.KostovičováL.Vallée-TourangeauF. (2015). Now you Bayes, now you don’t: Effects of set-problem and frequency-format mental representations on statistical reasoning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(5), 1465–1473. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0810-y
76.
SkinnerD. J. C.RocksS. A.PollardS. J. T.DrewG. H. (2014). Identifying uncertainty in environmental risk assessments: The development of a novel typology and its implications for risk characterization. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 20(3), 607–640. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2013.779899
77.
SlomanS. A.OverD.SlovakL.StibelJ. M. (2003). Frequency illusions and other fallacies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91(2), 296–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00021-9
78.
SoporyP.DayA. M.NovakJ. M.EckertK.WilkinsL.PadgettD. R.NoyesJ. P.BarakjiF. A.LiuJ.FowlerB. N.Guzman-BarcenasJ. B.NagaykoA.NickellJ. J.DonahueD.DanG. M. (2019). Communicating uncertainty during public health emergency events: A systematic review. Review of Communication Research, 7, 67–108. https://doi.org/10.12840/ISSN.2255-4165.019
79.
SpiegelhalterD.RieschH. (2011). Don’t know, can’t know: Embracing deeper uncertainties when analysing risks. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 369, 4730–4750. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2011.0163
80.
StarmerC. (2000). Developments in non-expected utility theory: The hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(2), 332–382. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.38.2.332
81.
SteinerM. J.DaleboutS.CondonS.DominikR.TrussellJ. (2003). Understanding risk: A randomized controlled trial of communicating contraceptive effectiveness. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 102(4), 709–717. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(03)00662-8
82.
SteinhardtJ.ShapiroM. A. (2015). Framing effects in narrative and non-narrative risk messages. Risk Analysis, 35(8), 1423–1436. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12368
83.
StoneE. R.ReederE. C.ParilloJ.LongC.WalbL. A. (2018). Salience versus proportional reasoning: Rethinking the mechanism behind graphical display effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 31(4), 473–486. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2051
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323.
88.
UlenT. S. (1990). The theory of rational choice, its shortcomings, and the implications for public policy decision making. Science Communication, 12(2), 170–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554709001200204van
89.
de SchootR.de BruinJ.SchramR.ZahediP.de BoerJ.WeijdemaF.KramerB.HuijtsM.HoogerwerfM.FerdinandsG.HarkemaA.WillemsenJ.MaY.FangQ.HindriksS.TummersL.OberskiD. L. (2021). An open source machine learning framework for efficient and transparent systematic reviews. Nature Machine Intelligence, 3(2), 125–133. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-020-00287-7
90.
Van der BlesA. M.Van der LindenS.FreemanA. L. J.MitchellJ.GalvaoA. B.ZavalL.SpiegelhalterD. J. (2019). Communicating uncertainty about facts, numbers and science. Royal Society Open Science, 6(5), 181870. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.181870
91.
VolzK. G.GigerenzerG. (2012). Cognitive processes in decisions under risk are not the same as in decisions under uncertainty. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 6, Article 105. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2012.00105
92.
Von NeumannJ.MorgensternO. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press.
93.
WalkerW. E.HarremoesP.RotmansJ.Van Der SluijsJ. P.Van AsseltM. B. A.JanssenP.Krayer Von KraussM. P. (2003). Defining uncertainty: A conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support. Integrated Assessment, 4(1), 5–17.
94.
WalkerW. E.MarchauV. A. W. J. (2003). Dealing with uncertainty in policy analysis and policymaking. Integrated Assessment, 4(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1076/iaij.4.1.1.16462
95.
WardekkerJ. A.SluijsJ. P.Van Der JanssenP. H. M.KloproggeP.PetersenA. C. (2008). Uncertainty communication in environmental assessments: Views from the Dutch science-policy interface. Environmental Science & Policy, 11(7), 627–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2008.05.005
96.
WhettenD. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution?The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490–495.
97.
Zikmund-FisherB. J.FagerlinA.RobertsT. R.DerryH. A.UbelP. A. (2008). Alternate methods of framing information about medication side effects: Incremental risk versus total risk of occurrence. Journal of Health Communication, 13(2), 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730701854011
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.
