This meta-analysis synthesized 43 empirical articles to summarize the impact of communicating three distinct uncertainty types (i.e., epistemic uncertainty, consensus uncertainty, and technical uncertainty) in science communication. The results revealed divergent effects across these three uncertainty types. Specifically, communicating epistemic uncertainty was found to have a small yet positive effect on credibility perception (d = 0.09), with a nonsignificant impact on attitudes. Conversely, communicating consensus uncertainty (d = −0.12) and technical uncertainty (d = −0.15) demonstrated a slight negative effect on attitudes, without impacting credibility perception. In addition, topic domain, cultural uncertainty avoidance, and text length were important moderators.
*AdamsD. R.RatcliffC. L.PokharelM.JensenJ. D.LiaoY. (2024). Communicating scientific uncertainty in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic: A message experiment. Risk Analysis, 44(7), 1700–1715.
2.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
3.
*AklinM.UrpelainenJ. (2014). Perceptions of scientific dissent undermine public support for environmental policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 38, 173–177.
4.
AvenT. (2023). A risk and safety science perspective on the precautionary principle. Safety Science, 165, 106211.
5.
BabrowA. S.KaschC. R.FordL. A. (1998). The many meanings of uncertainty in illness: Toward a systematic accounting. Health Communication, 10(1), 1–23.
6.
BartoszekG.RanneyR. M.CuranovicI.CostelloS. J.BeharE. (2022). Intolerance of uncertainty and information-seeking behavior: Experimental manipulation of threat relevance. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 154, 104125.
7.
BaxterL. A.MontgomeryB. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. Guilford Press.
8.
BaxterL. A.NorwoodK. M. (2015). Relational dialectics theory: Navigating meaning from competing discourses. Engaging Theories in Interpersonal Communication: Multiple Perspectives, 2, 279–292.
9.
BergerC. R.CalabreseR. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interactions and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1(2), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x
10.
BesleyJ. C.NisbetM. (2013). How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understanding of Science, 22(6), 644–659.
11.
BeugelsdijkS.MaselandR.Van HoornA. (2015). Are scores on Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture stable over time? A cohort analysis. Global Strategy Journal, 5(3), 223–240.
12.
BolgerN.ZeeK. S.Rossignac-MilonM.HassinR. R. (2019). Causal processes in psychology are heterogeneous. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(4), 601–618.
13.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2010). A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(2), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.12
14.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2013). Comprehensive meta-analysis version 3 [Computer software]. Biostat.
15.
BrashersD. E. (2001). Communication and uncertainty management. Journal of Communication, 51(3), 477–497.
*ChangC. (2015). Motivated processing: How people perceive news covering novel or contradictory health research findings. Science Communication, 37(5), 602–634.
18.
ChenM.DongY.WangJ. (2024). A meta-analysis examining the role of character-recipient similarity in narrative persuasion. Communication Research, 51(1), 56–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502231204834
19.
*ChinnS.LaneD. S.HartP. S. (2018). In consensus we trust? Persuasive effects of scientific consensus communication. Public Understanding of Science, 27(7), 807–823.
20.
*ClarkeC. E.DixonG. N.HoltonA.McKeeverB. W. (2015). Including “evidentiary balance” in news media coverage of vaccine risk. Health Communication, 30(5), 461–472.
21.
CohenJ. (1992). Quantitative methods in psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
22.
CookJ.LewandowskyS.EckerU. K. (2017). Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLOS ONE, 12(5), Article e0175799. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175799
23.
CrowleyA. E.HoyerW. D. (1994). An integrative framework for understanding two-sided persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 561–574.
24.
*DixonG. N.ClarkeC. E. (2013). Heightening uncertainty around certain science: Media coverage, false balance, and the autism-vaccine controversy. Science Communication, 35(3), 358–382.
25.
*DixonG. N.McKeeverB. W.HoltonA. E.ClarkeC.EoscoG. (2015). The power of a picture: Overcoming scientific misinformation by communicating weight-of-evidence information with visual exemplars. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 639–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12159
26.
DuL.ChengZ.ZhangY.LiY.MeiD. (2017). The impact of medication adherence on clinical outcomes of coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 24(9), 962–970.
27.
*DunwoodyS. (1999). Scientists, journalists, and the meaning of uncertainty. In FriedmanS.DunwoodyS.RogersC. (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 59–80). Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
DunwoodyS.KohlP. A. (2017). Using weight-of-experts messaging to communicate accurately about contested science. Science Communication, 39(3), 338–357.
29.
EbelingM. F. (2008). Mediating uncertainty: Communicating the financial risks of nanotechnologies. Science Communication, 29(3), 335–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547007312068
30.
EggerM.SmithG. D.SchneiderM.MinderC. (1997). Papers bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315, 629–631.
31.
ErsoyA.MahmoodZ.SharifS.ErsoyN.EhtiyarR. (2023). Exploring the associations between social support, perceived uncertainty, job stress, and emotional exhaustion during the COVID-19 crisis. Sustainability, 15(3), 2150.
32.
EvelandW. P.Jr.HivelyM. H. (2009). Political discussion frequency, network size, and “heterogeneity” of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and participation. Journal of Communication, 59(2), 205–224.
33.
FischhoffB. (2012). Communicating uncertainty fulfilling the duty to inform. Issues in Science and Technology, 28(4), 63–70. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43315647
34.
FlanaginA. J. (2007). Commercial markets as communication markets: Uncertainty reduction through mediated information exchange in online auctions. New Media & Society, 9, 401–423.
35.
*FlemmingD.KimmerleJ.CressU.SinatraG. M. (2020). Research is tentative, but that’s okay: Overcoming misconceptions about scientific tentativeness through refutation texts. Discourse Processes, 57(1), 17–35.
36.
FrewerL. J.MilesS.BrennanM.KuznesofS.NessM.RitsonC. (2002). Public preferences for informed choice under conditions of risk uncertainty. Public Understanding of Science, 11(4), 363–372.
37.
FriedmanS. M.DunwoodyS.RogersC. L. (Eds.). (1999). Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
38.
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
39.
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
40.
*HaighM.BirchH. A. (2021). When “scientists say” coffee is good for you one day and bad for you the next: Do generic attributions to “scientists” and “experts” amplify perceived conflict?Collabra: Psychology, 7(1), 23447.
41.
*HanP. K.Zikmund-FisherB. J.DuarteC. W.KnausM.BlackA.SchererA. M.FagerlinA. (2018). Communication of scientific uncertainty about a novel pandemic health threat: Ambiguity aversion and its mechanisms. Journal of Health Communication, 23(5), 435–444.
42.
*HendriksF.JanssenI.JucksR. (2023). Balance as credibility? How presenting one-vs. two-sided messages affects ratings of scientists’ and politicians’ trustworthiness. Health Communication, 38(12), 2757–2764.
43.
*HinnantA.HuS.HongY.YoungR. (2023). Contested certainty and credibility: The effect of personal stories and scientific evidence in user comments on news story evaluation and relevance. Science Communication, 45(1), 65–94.
44.
HofstedeG. (1983). National cultures in four dimensions: A research-based theory of cultural differences among nations. International Studies of Management & Organization, 13(1–2), 46–74.
45.
HofstedeG. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage.
46.
HofstedeG. (2013). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage.
47.
*HoweL. C.MacInnisB.KrosnickJ. A.MarkowitzE. M.SocolowR. (2019). Acknowledging uncertainty impacts public acceptance of climate scientists’ predictions. Nature Climate Change, 9(11), 863–867. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0587-5
48.
*HendriksF.JucksR. (2020). Does scientific uncertainty in news articles affect readers’ trust and decision-making?Media and Communication, 8(2), 401–412.
49.
IhlenØ.JustS. N.KjeldsenJ. E.MølsterR.OfferdalT. S.RasmussenJ.SkogerbøE. (2022). Transparency beyond information disclosure: Strategies of the Scandinavian public health authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Risk Research, 25(10), 1176–1189. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2022.2077416
50.
*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.
51.
*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(5), 486–503.
52.
*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(6), 689–704.
53.
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(1), 40–51.
54.
JohnsonB. B. (2018). “Counting votes” in public responses to scientific disputes. Public Understanding of Science, 27(5), 594–610.
55.
JohnsonB. B.SlovicP. (1995). Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: Initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust. Risk Analysis, 15(4), 485–494.
56.
*JoslynS.DemnitzR. (2019). Communicating climate change: Probabilistic expressions and concrete events. Weather, Climate, and Society, 11(3), 651–664.
57.
*JoslynS.DemnitzR. (2021). Explaining how long CO2 stays in the atmosphere: Does it change attitudes toward climate change?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 27(3), 473–484.
58.
*JoslynS. L.LeClercJ. E. (2016). Climate projections and uncertainty communication. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1), 222–241.
59.
*JurhillB. A. (2022). The effects of personalized health risks and communication of epistemic uncertainty on risk perceptions and trustworthiness in healthcare [Master Thesis]. Tilburg University.
60.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1982). Variants of uncertainty. Cognition, 11(2), 143–157.
61.
*KalnyC.WalterN. (2024). Tipping the scales of psychological reactance: A closer look at imperative language and the role of epistemic certainty. Science Communication, 46(3), 366–393.
62.
*KelpN. C.WittJ. K.SivakumarG. (2022). To vaccinate or not? The role played by uncertainty communication on public understanding and behavior regarding COVID-19. Science Communication, 44(2), 223–239.
63.
KeohaneR. O.LaneM.OppenheimerM. (2014). The ethics of scientific communication under uncertainty. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 13(4), 343–368.
64.
*KerrJ. R.van der BlesA. M.SchneiderC.DryhurstS.ChopurianV.FreemanA. L.van der LindenS. (2021). The effects of communicating uncertainty around statistics on public trust: An international study. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.27.21264202
65.
*KerrJ. R.van der LindenS. (2022). Communicating expert consensus increases personal support for COVID-19 mitigation policies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 52(1), 15–29.
66.
KimD. H. (2019). “How do you feel about a disease?” The effect of psychological distance towards a disease on health communication. International Journal of Advertising, 38(1), 139–153.
67.
*KimmerleJ.FlemmingD.FeinkohlI.CressU. (2015). How laypeople understand the tentativeness of medical research news in the media: An experimental study on the perception of information about deep brain stimulation. Science Communication, 37(2), 173–189.
68.
*KortenkampK. V.BastenB. (2015). Environmental science in the media: Effects of opposing viewpoints on risk and uncertainty perceptions. Science Communication, 37(3), 287–313.
69.
KrepsS. E.KrinerD. L. (2020). Model uncertainty, political contestation, and public trust in science: Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic. Science Advances, 6(43), Article eabd4563.
70.
KruglanskiA. W. (1989). Lay epistemics and human knowledge: Cognitive and motivational bases. Springer.
71.
KüçükkömürlerS.ÖzkanT. (2022). Political interest across cultures: The role of uncertainty avoidance and trust. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 91, 88–96.
72.
KuhnT. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
73.
LandauM. J.KeeferL. A.RothschildZ. K. (2014). Epistemic motives moderate the effect of metaphoric framing on attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 125–138.
74.
LarrimoreL.JiangL.LarrimoreJ.MarkowitzD.GorskiS. (2011). Peer to peer lending: The relationship between language features, trustworthiness, and persuasion success. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 39(1), 19–37.
75.
LehmkuhlM.PetersH. P. (2016). Constructing (un-)certainty: An exploration of journalistic decision-making in the reporting of neuroscience. Public Understanding of Science, 25(8), 909–926. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516646047
76.
LiD.DuY. (2017). Artificial intelligence with uncertainty. CRC Press.
77.
*LinH.KimY. (2022). The effects of gain-loss framing and message sidedness on GMO acceptance: The mediating role of psychological reactance. Asian Communication Research, 19(2), 70–91.
78.
LohseS. (2023). Mapping uncertainty in precision medicine: A systematic scoping review. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 29(3), 554–564. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13789
79.
*LongmanT.TurnerR. M.KingM.McCafferyK. J. (2012). The effects of communicating uncertainty in quantitative health risk estimates. Patient Education and Counseling, 89(2), 252–259.
80.
MaierM.MildeJ.PostS.GüntherL.RuhrmannG.BarkelaB. (2016). Communicating scientific evidence: Scientists,’ journalists’ and audiences’ expectations and evaluations regarding the representation of scientific uncertainty. Communications, 41(3), 239–264.
81.
MaximL.MansierP. (2014). How is scientific credibility affected by communicating uncertainty? The case of endocrine disrupter effects on male fertility. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 20(1), 201–223.
82.
*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(1), 103–109.
83.
*NaglerR. H.YzerM. C.RothmanA. J. (2019). Effects of media exposure to conflicting information about mammography: Results from a population-based survey experiment. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 53(10), 896–908.
84.
*NakayachiK.JohnsonB. B.KoketsuK. (2018). Effects of acknowledging uncertainty about earthquake risk estimates on San Francisco bay area residents’ beliefs, attitudes, and intentions. Risk Analysis, 38(4), 666–679.
85.
NirL. (2011). Motivated reasoning and public opinion perception. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(3), 504–532.
86.
O’KeefeD. J. (2003). Message properties, mediating states, and manipulation checks: Claims, evidence, and data analysis in experimental persuasive message effects research. Communication Theory, 13(3), 251–274.
87.
OsmanM.HeathA. J.LöfstedtR. (2018). The problems of increasing transparency on uncertainty. Public Understanding of Science, 27(2), 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517711058
88.
PadillaL. M.PowellM.KayM.HullmanJ. (2021). Uncertain about uncertainty: How qualitative expressions of forecaster confidence impact decision-making with uncertainty visualizations. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 579267.
89.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion (pp. 1–24). Springer.
PollackH. N. (2003). Uncertain science. . . Uncertain world. Cambridge University Press.
93.
PostS.MaierM. (2016). Stakeholders’ rationales for representing uncertainties of biotechnological research. Public Understanding of Science, 25(8), 944–960.
94.
ProchaskaJ. O.DiClementeC. C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(3), 390–395.
95.
RatcliffC. L. (2021). Communicating scientific uncertainty across the dissemination trajectory: A precision medicine case study. Science Communication, 43(5), 597–623.
96.
RatcliffC. L.HarvillB.WickeR. (2023). Understanding public preferences for learning about uncertain science: measurement and individual difference correlates. Frontiers in Communication, 8, 1245786.
97.
RatcliffC. L.WickeR.HarvillB. (2022). Communicating uncertainty to the public during the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping review of the literature. Annals of the International Communication Association, 46(4), 260–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2022.2085136
98.
RatcliffC. L.SunY. (2020). Overcoming resistance through narratives: Findings from a meta-analytic review. Human Communication Research, 46(4), 412–443.
99.
*RatcliffC. L.WickeR. (2023). How the public evaluates media representations of uncertain science: An integrated explanatory framework. Public Understanding of Science, 32(4), 410–427.
100.
*RatcliffC. L.WongB.JensenJ. D.KaphingstK. A. (2021). The impact of communicating uncertainty on public responses to precision medicine research. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 55(11), 1048–1061.
101.
*RetzbachA.MaierM. (2015). Communicating scientific uncertainty: Media effects on public engagement with science. Communication Research, 42(3), 429–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214534967
102.
RiceR. E.GustafsonA.HoffmanZ. (2018). Frequent but accurate: A closer look at uncertainty and opinion divergence in climate change print news. Environmental Communication, 12(3), 301–321.
103.
RuhrmannG.GuentherL.KesslerS. H.MildeJ. (2015). Frames of scientific evidence: How journalists represent the (un)certainty of molecular medicine in science television programs. Public Understanding of Science, 24(6), 681–696.
104.
SchmidtF. L.HunterJ. E. (1999). Comparison of three meta-analysis methods revisited: An analysis of Johnson, Mullen, and Salas (1995). Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 144–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.144
105.
*SchneiderC. R.FreemanA. L.SpiegelhalterD.van der LindenS. (2022). The effects of communicating scientific uncertainty on trust and decision making in a public health context. Judgment and Decision Making, 17(4), 849–882.
106.
SchneiderJ. (2010). Making space for the “nuances of truth”: Communication and uncertainty at an environmental journalists’ workshop. Science Communication, 32(2), 171–201.
107.
SheeranP. (2002). Intention—Behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. European Review of Social Psychology, 12(1), 1–36.
108.
ShenF.SheerV. C.LiR. (2015). Impact of narratives on persuasion in health communication: A meta-analysis. Journal of Advertising, 44(2), 105–113.
109.
*ShiW.RothmanA. J.YzerM. C.NaglerR. H. (2023). Effects of exposure to conflicting information about mammography on cancer information overload, perceived scientists’ credibility, and perceived journalists’ credibility. Health Communication, 38(11), 2481–2490.
110.
SimisM. (2013). Framing uncertainty: A case for purposefully using frames in science communication. In GoodwinJ.DahlstromM. F.PriestS. (Eds.), Ethical issues in science communication: A theory-based approach proceedings of the Iowa State University summer symposia on science communication, book 3 (p. 265). University of Chicago Press.
111.
*SladakovicJ.JansenJ.HerschJ.TurnerR.McCafferyK. (2016). The differential effects of presenting uncertainty around benefits and harms on treatment decision making. Patient Education and Counseling, 99(6), 974–980.
112.
SpiegelhalterD. J.RieschH. (2011). Don’t know, can’t know: Embracing deeper uncertainties when analysing risks. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 369(1956), 4730–4750.
*SteijaertM. J.SchaapG.RietJ. V. T. (2021). Two-sided science: Communicating scientific uncertainty increases trust in scientists and donation intention by decreasing attribution of communicator bias. Communications, 46(2), 297–316.
115.
TandocE. C.Jr.LeeJ. C. B.LeeS.QuekP. J. (2024). Does length matter? The impact of fact-check length in reducing COVID-19 vaccine misinformation. Mass Communication and Society, 27, 679–709.
116.
TangY. T.ChooiW. T. (2023). From concern to action: The role of psychological distance in attitude towards environmental issues. Current Psychology, 42(30), 26570–26586.
117.
ThorpH. H. (2023). Correction is courageous. Science, 382(6672), 743–743.
118.
TropeY.LibermanN. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463.
119.
*van der BlesA. M.van der LindenS.FreemanA. L.MitchellJ.GalvaoA. B.ZavalL.SpiegelhalterD. J. (2019). Communicating uncertainty about facts, numbers and science. Royal Society Open Science, 6(5), 181870.
120.
van der BlesA. M.van der LindenS.FreemanA. L.SpiegelhalterD. J. (2020). The effects of communicating uncertainty on public trust in facts and numbers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(14), 7672–7683. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913678117
121.
WangY.ThierK.LeeS.NanX. (2024). Persuasive effects of temporal framing in health messaging: A meta-analysis. Health Communication, 39, 563–576.
122.
WattsL. L.SteeleL. M.Den HartogD. N. (2020). Uncertainty avoidance moderates the relationship between transformational leadership and innovation: A meta-analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 51(1), 138–145.
123.
WeinerB. (1972). Attribution theory, achievement motivation, and the educational process. Review of Educational Research, 42(2), 203–215.
124.
WeinerB. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573.
125.
*WiedemannP.BoernerF. U.FreudensteinF. (2021). Effects of communicating uncertainty descriptions in hazard identification, risk characterization, and risk protection. PLOS ONE, 16(7), Article e0253762.
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.
