Making sense of uncertainty

Advantages and disadvantages of providing an evaluative structure

Nathan Dieckmann, Ellen Peters, Robin Gregory, Martin Tusler

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In many decision contexts, there is uncertainty in the assessed probabilities and expected consequences of different actions. The fundamental goal for information providers is to present uncertainty in a way that is not overly complicated, yet sufficiently detailed to prompt decision-makers to think about the implications of this uncertainty for the decision at hand. In two experiments, we assess the pros and cons of providing an evaluative structure to facilitate the comprehension and use of uncertainty information and explore whether people who vary in numeracy perceive and use uncertainty in different ways. Participants were presented with scenarios and summary tables describing the anticipated consequences of different environmental-management actions. Our results suggest that different uncertainty formats may lead people to think in particular ways. Laypeople had an easier time understanding the general concept of uncertainty when an evaluative label was presented (e.g. uncertainty is High or Low). However, when asked about a specific possible outcome for an attribute, participants performed better when presented with numerical ranges. Our results also suggest that there appear to be advantages to using evaluative labels, in that they can highlight aspects of uncertainty information that may otherwise be overlooked in more complex numerical displays. However, the salience of evaluative labels appeared to cause some participants to put undue weight on this information, which resulted in value-inconsistent choices. The simplicity and power of providing an evaluative structure is a double-edged sword.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)717-735
Number of pages19
JournalJournal of Risk Research
Volume15
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

uncertainty
Labels
Uncertainty
Disadvantage
Sensemaking
layperson
Environmental management
environmental management
decision maker
comprehension
Display devices
scenario
cause
present
experiment
Values
Experiments
Information uncertainty

Keywords

  • ambiguity
  • decision analysis
  • evaluability
  • risk communication
  • uncertainty

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality
  • Engineering(all)
  • Strategy and Management
  • Social Sciences(all)

Cite this

Making sense of uncertainty : Advantages and disadvantages of providing an evaluative structure. / Dieckmann, Nathan; Peters, Ellen; Gregory, Robin; Tusler, Martin.

In: Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 15, No. 7, 01.08.2012, p. 717-735.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Dieckmann, Nathan ; Peters, Ellen ; Gregory, Robin ; Tusler, Martin. / Making sense of uncertainty : Advantages and disadvantages of providing an evaluative structure. In: Journal of Risk Research. 2012 ; Vol. 15, No. 7. pp. 717-735.
@article{ab24e611d1c54c4d8e257166093e7849,
title = "Making sense of uncertainty: Advantages and disadvantages of providing an evaluative structure",
abstract = "In many decision contexts, there is uncertainty in the assessed probabilities and expected consequences of different actions. The fundamental goal for information providers is to present uncertainty in a way that is not overly complicated, yet sufficiently detailed to prompt decision-makers to think about the implications of this uncertainty for the decision at hand. In two experiments, we assess the pros and cons of providing an evaluative structure to facilitate the comprehension and use of uncertainty information and explore whether people who vary in numeracy perceive and use uncertainty in different ways. Participants were presented with scenarios and summary tables describing the anticipated consequences of different environmental-management actions. Our results suggest that different uncertainty formats may lead people to think in particular ways. Laypeople had an easier time understanding the general concept of uncertainty when an evaluative label was presented (e.g. uncertainty is High or Low). However, when asked about a specific possible outcome for an attribute, participants performed better when presented with numerical ranges. Our results also suggest that there appear to be advantages to using evaluative labels, in that they can highlight aspects of uncertainty information that may otherwise be overlooked in more complex numerical displays. However, the salience of evaluative labels appeared to cause some participants to put undue weight on this information, which resulted in value-inconsistent choices. The simplicity and power of providing an evaluative structure is a double-edged sword.",
keywords = "ambiguity, decision analysis, evaluability, risk communication, uncertainty",
author = "Nathan Dieckmann and Ellen Peters and Robin Gregory and Martin Tusler",
year = "2012",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/13669877.2012.666760",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "15",
pages = "717--735",
journal = "Journal of Risk Research",
issn = "1366-9877",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Making sense of uncertainty

T2 - Advantages and disadvantages of providing an evaluative structure

AU - Dieckmann, Nathan

AU - Peters, Ellen

AU - Gregory, Robin

AU - Tusler, Martin

PY - 2012/8/1

Y1 - 2012/8/1

N2 - In many decision contexts, there is uncertainty in the assessed probabilities and expected consequences of different actions. The fundamental goal for information providers is to present uncertainty in a way that is not overly complicated, yet sufficiently detailed to prompt decision-makers to think about the implications of this uncertainty for the decision at hand. In two experiments, we assess the pros and cons of providing an evaluative structure to facilitate the comprehension and use of uncertainty information and explore whether people who vary in numeracy perceive and use uncertainty in different ways. Participants were presented with scenarios and summary tables describing the anticipated consequences of different environmental-management actions. Our results suggest that different uncertainty formats may lead people to think in particular ways. Laypeople had an easier time understanding the general concept of uncertainty when an evaluative label was presented (e.g. uncertainty is High or Low). However, when asked about a specific possible outcome for an attribute, participants performed better when presented with numerical ranges. Our results also suggest that there appear to be advantages to using evaluative labels, in that they can highlight aspects of uncertainty information that may otherwise be overlooked in more complex numerical displays. However, the salience of evaluative labels appeared to cause some participants to put undue weight on this information, which resulted in value-inconsistent choices. The simplicity and power of providing an evaluative structure is a double-edged sword.

AB - In many decision contexts, there is uncertainty in the assessed probabilities and expected consequences of different actions. The fundamental goal for information providers is to present uncertainty in a way that is not overly complicated, yet sufficiently detailed to prompt decision-makers to think about the implications of this uncertainty for the decision at hand. In two experiments, we assess the pros and cons of providing an evaluative structure to facilitate the comprehension and use of uncertainty information and explore whether people who vary in numeracy perceive and use uncertainty in different ways. Participants were presented with scenarios and summary tables describing the anticipated consequences of different environmental-management actions. Our results suggest that different uncertainty formats may lead people to think in particular ways. Laypeople had an easier time understanding the general concept of uncertainty when an evaluative label was presented (e.g. uncertainty is High or Low). However, when asked about a specific possible outcome for an attribute, participants performed better when presented with numerical ranges. Our results also suggest that there appear to be advantages to using evaluative labels, in that they can highlight aspects of uncertainty information that may otherwise be overlooked in more complex numerical displays. However, the salience of evaluative labels appeared to cause some participants to put undue weight on this information, which resulted in value-inconsistent choices. The simplicity and power of providing an evaluative structure is a double-edged sword.

KW - ambiguity

KW - decision analysis

KW - evaluability

KW - risk communication

KW - uncertainty

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84864031759&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84864031759&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/13669877.2012.666760

DO - 10.1080/13669877.2012.666760

M3 - Article

VL - 15

SP - 717

EP - 735

JO - Journal of Risk Research

JF - Journal of Risk Research

SN - 1366-9877

IS - 7

ER -