Scientific uncertainty has long posed challenges for science communication and research. There is a need to better understand how non-expert publics conceptualize scientific uncertainty and how to reliably and validly measure public understanding of scientific uncertainty. We address this need using a mixed-methods approach. In Study 1 we conducted a series of focus groups to explore how non-expert publics conceptualize scientific uncertainty and identified three themes related to process, contexts, and impacts. In Study 2 we developed and validated a new 9-item survey scale to measure public understanding of scientific uncertainty (PUSU).
AkinH. (2017). Overview of the science of science communication. In JamiesonK. H.KahanD. M.ScheufeleD. A. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication (pp. 25–33). Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190497620.013.3
2.
AkinH.RoseK. M.ScheufeleD. A.Simis-WilkinsonM.BrossardD.XenosM. A.CorleyE. A. (2017). Mapping the landscape of public attitudes on synthetic biology. BioScience, 67(3), 290–300. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw171
3.
AkinH.YeoS. K.WirzC. D.ScheufeleD. A.BrossardD.XenosM. A.CorleyE. A. (2019). Are attitudes toward labeling nano products linked to attitudes toward GMO? Exploring a potential “spillover” effect for attitudes toward controversial technologies. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 6(1), 50–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2018.1495026
4.
AllumN.SturgisP.TabouraziD.Brunton-SmithI. (2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17(1), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506070159
BabbieE. (2010). The practice of social research (12th ed.). Cengage Learning.
7.
BaoL.KrauseN. M.CaliceM. N.ScheufeleD. A.WirzC. D.BrossardD.NewmanT. P.XenosM. A. (2022). Whose AI? How different publics think about AI and its social impacts. Computers in Human Behavior, 130, 107182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107182
8.
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
9.
BoatengG. O.NeilandsT. B.FrongilloE. A.Melgar-QuiñonezH. R.YoungS. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 149–149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
BraunV.ClarkeV.HayfieldN.TerryG. (2019). Thematic analysis. In LiamputtongP. (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp. 843–860). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_103
12.
BroomellS. B.KaneP. B. (2017). Public perception and communication of scientific uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 146(2), 286–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000260
13.
BrossardD.NisbetM. C. (2007). Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19(1), 24–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edl003
14.
BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A.KimE.LewensteinB. V. (2009). Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18(5), 546–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662507087304
CacciatoreM. A.ScheufeleD. A.BinderA. R.ShawB. R. (2012). Public attitudes toward biofuels: Effects of knowledge, political partisanship, and media use. Politics and the Life Sciences, 31(1/2), 36–51. https://doi.org/10.2990/31_1-2_36
CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E.Chuan FengK. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306–307. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13
CarletonR. N.NortonM. A. P. J.AsmundsonG. J. G. (2007). Fearing the unknown: A short version of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 21(1), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.03.014
DoyleE. E. H.ThompsonJ.HillS.WilliamsM.PatonD.HarrisonS.BostromA.BeckerJ. (2023). Where does scientific uncertainty come from, and from whom? Mapping perspectives of natural hazards science advice. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 96, 103948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103948
24.
DruckmanJ. N. (2022). Experimental thinking: A primer on social science experiments. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108991353.
EpsteinS. (1995). The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 20(4), 408–437. http://www.jstor.org/stable/689868
FreestonM. H.RhéaumeJ.LetarteH.DugasM. J.LadouceurR. (1994). Why do people worry?Personality and Individual Differences, 17(6), 791–802. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)90048-5
30.
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. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/11/4/304
31.
FüchslinT.SchäferM. S.MetagJ. (2019). Who wants to be a citizen scientist? Identifying the potential of citizen science and target segments in Switzerland. Public Understanding of Science, 28(6), 652–668. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519852020
32.
FuntowiczS. O.RavetzJ. R. (1991). A new scientific methodology for global environmental issues. In CostanzaR. (Ed.), Ecological economics: The science and management of sustainability (pp. 137–152). Columbia University Press.
GuoZ.LiuK.ChenM. (2025). A meta-analysis synthesizing the effects of three uncertainty types in science communication. Science Communication, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470251314129
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.
HanP. K. J.KleinW. M. P.AroraN. K. (2011). Varieties of uncertainty in health care: A conceptual taxonomy. Medical Decision Making, 31(6), 828–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x11393976
37.
HinkinT. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106
38.
HoS. S.BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A. (2008). Effects of value predispositions, mass media use and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(2), 171–192. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edn017
39.
HowellE. L.BrossardD. (2021). (Mis)informed about what? What it means to be a science-literate citizen in a digital world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(15), e1912436117. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1912436117
40.
HowellE. L.KohlP.ScheufeleD. A.CliffordS.ShaoA.XenosM. A.BrossardD. (2022). Enhanced threat or therapeutic benefit? Risk and benefit perceptions of human gene editing by purpose and heritability of edits. Journal of Risk Research, 25(2), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1806911
41.
HowellE. L.WirzC. D.ScheufeleD. A.BrossardD.XenosM. A. (2020). Deference and decision-making in science and society: How deference to scientific authority goes beyond confidence in science and scientists to become authoritarianism. Public Understanding of Science, 29(8), 800–818. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520962741
42.
HuL.-t.BentlerP. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424
KohlP. A.BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A.XenosM. A. (2019). Public views about editing genes in wildlife for conservation. Conservation Biology, 33(6), 1231–1455. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13310
45.
KrauseN. M.FreilingI.ScheufeleD. A. (2022). The “infodemic” infodemic: Toward a more nuanced understanding of truth-claims and the need for (not) combatting misinformation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 700(1), 112–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162221086263
LammersW.FerrariS.WenmackersS.PattynV.Van de WalleS. (2024). Theories of uncertainty communication: An interdisciplinary literature review. Science Communication, 46(3), 332–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470241231290
48.
LatourB.WoolgarS. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Princeton University Press.
49.
Lins de Holanda CoelhoG. P.HanelH. P.WolfL. J. (2020). The very efficient assessment of need for cognition: Developing a six-Item version. Assessment, 27(8), 1870–1885. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118793208
50.
MedeN. G.HowellE. L.SchäferM. S.MetagJ.BeetsB.BrossardD. (2025). Measuring science literacy in a digital world: Development and validation of a multi-dimensional survey scale. Science Communication, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470251317379
51.
MedeN. G.SchäferM. S. (2021). Science-related populism declining during the COVID-19 pandemic: A panel survey of the Swiss population before and after the Coronavirus outbreak. Public Understanding of Science, 31(2), 211–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625211056871
52.
MilesS.FrewerL. J. (2003). Public perception of scientific uncertainty in relation to food hazards. Journal of Risk Research, 6(3), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/1366987032000088883
MorgadoF. F. R.MeirelesJ. F. F.NevesC. M.AmaralA. C. S.FerreiraM. E. C. (2017). Scale development: Ten main limitations and recommendations to improve future research practices. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 30(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-016-0057-1
55.
NaglerR. H.VogelR. I.GollustS. E.RothmanA. J.FowlerE. F.YzerM. C. (2020). Public perceptions of conflicting information surrounding COVID-19: Results from a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults. PLOS ONE, 15(10), e0240776. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240776
56.
National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. (2016). Science literacy: Concepts, contexts, and consequences. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23595
57.
National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. (2017). Communicating science effectively: A research agenda. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23674
PinchT. J. (1981). The sun-set: The presentation of certainty in scientific life. Social Studies of Science, 11(1), 131–158. http://www.jstor.org/stable/284738
60.
PostS.BienzeislerN.LohöfenerM. (2021). A desire for authoritative science? How citizens’ informational needs and epistemic beliefs shaped their views of science, news, and policymaking in the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Understanding of Science, 30(5), 496–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625211005334
61.
RabinovichA.MortonT. A. (2012). Unquestioned answers or unanswered questions: Beliefs about science guide responses to uncertainty in climate change risk communication. Risk Analysis, 32(6), 992–1002. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01771.x
62.
RatcliffC. L.HarvillB.WickeR. (2023). Understanding public preferences for learning about uncertain science: Measurement and individual difference correlates. Frontiers in Communication, 8, 1245786. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2023.1245786
63.
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
64.
RetzbachJ.OttoL.MaierM. (2016). Measuring the perceived uncertainty of scientific evidence and its relationship to engagement with science. Public Understanding of Science, 25(6), 638–655. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515575253
65.
RoetsA.Van HielA. (2011). Item selection and validation of a brief, 15-item version of the Need for Closure Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(1), 90–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.004
66.
RothW.-M. (2008). Radical uncertainty in scientific discovery work. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 34(3), 313–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243907309627
RyderJ. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260108560166
69.
ScheufeleD. A. (2018). Beyond the choir? The need to understand multiple publics for science. Environmental Communication, 12(8), 1123–1126. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1521543
70.
ScheufeleD. A.KrauseN. M.FreilingI.BrossardD. (2020, April17). How not to lose the COVID-19 communication war. Issues in Science & Technology. Slate.
71.
ScheufeleD. A.XenosM. A.HowellE. L.RoseK. M.BrossardD.HardyB. W. (2017). U.S. attitudes on human genome editing. Science, 357(6351), 553–554. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan3708
72.
ShackleyS.WynneB. (1996). Representing uncertainty in global climate change science and policy: Boundary-ordering devices and authority. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 21(3), 275–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399602100302
73.
SiegristM.ConnorM.KellerC. (2012). Trust, confidence, procedural fairness, outcome fairness, moral conviction, and the acceptance of GM field experiments. Risk Analysis, 32(8), 1394–1403. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01739.x
74.
SmithL.SternN. (2011). Uncertainty in science and its role in climate policy. Philosophical Transactions: Series A, 369, 4818–4841. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2011.0149
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
77.
VisschersV. H. M. (2018). Public perception of uncertainties within climate change science. Risk Analysis, 38(1), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12818
78.
WebsterD. M.KruglanskiA. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1049.
79.
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(3), 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x14555872
80.
WynneB. (1992a). Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1(3), 281–304. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/1/3/004
81.
WynneB. (1992b). Uncertainty and environmental learning: Reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 2, 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-3780(92)90017-2
82.
YangS.KrauseN. M.BaoL.CaliceM. N.NewmanT. P.ScheufeleD. A.XenosM. A.BrossardD. (2023). In AI we trust: The interplay of media use, political ideology, and trust in shaping emerging AI attitudes. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 102(2), 382–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990231190868
83.
ZhaoX.LeiserowitzA. A.MaibachE. W.Roser-RenoufC. (2011). Attention to science/environment news positively predicts and attention to political news negatively predicts global warming risk perceptions and policy support. Journal of Communication, 61(4), 713–731. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01563.x
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.
