IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/meanco/v8y2020i2p401-412.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Scientific Uncertainty in News Articles Affect Readers’ Trust and Decision-Making?

Author

Listed:
  • Friederike Hendriks

    (Department of Psychology and Sport Studies, University of Münster, Germany)

  • Regina Jucks

    (Department of Psychology and Sport Studies, University of Münster, Germany)

Abstract

Even though a main goal of science is to reduce the uncertainty in scientific results by applying ever-improving research methods, epistemic uncertainty is an integral part of science. As such, while uncertainty might be communicated in news articles about climate science, climate skeptics have also exploited this uncertainty to cast doubt on science itself. We performed two studies to assess whether scientific uncertainty affects laypeople’s assessments of issue uncertainty, the credibility of the information, their trust in scientists and climate science, and impacts their decision-making. In addition, we addressed how these effects are influenced by further information on relevant scientific processes, because knowing that uncertainty goes along with scientific research could ease laypeople’s interpretations of uncertainty around evidence and may even protect against negative impacts of such uncertainty on trust. Unexpectedly, in study 1, after participants read both a text about research methods and a news article that included scientific uncertainty, they had lower trust in the scientists’ assertions than when they read the uncertain news article alone (but this did not impact trust in climate science or decision-making). In study 2, we tested whether these results occurred due to participants overestimating the scientific uncertainty at hand. Hence, we varied the framing of uncertainty in the text on scientific processes. We found that exaggerating the scientific uncertainty produced by scientific processes (vs. framing the uncertainty as something to be expected) did not negatively affect participants’ trust ratings. However, the degree to which participants preferred effortful reasoning on problems (intellective epistemic style) correlated with ratings of trust in scientists and climate science and with their decision-making. In sum, there was only little evidence that the introduction of uncertainty in news articles would affect participants’ ratings of trust and their decision-making, but their preferred style of reasoning did.

Suggested Citation

  • Friederike Hendriks & Regina Jucks, 2020. "Does Scientific Uncertainty in News Articles Affect Readers’ Trust and Decision-Making?," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 401-412.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:meanco:v:8:y:2020:i:2:p:401-412
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/2824
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van der Bles, Anne Marthe & van der Liden, Sander & Freeman, Alessandra L. J. & Mitchell, James & Galvao, Ana Beatriz & Spiegelhalter, David J., 2019. "Communicating uncertainty about facts, numbers, and science," EMF Research Papers 22, Economic Modelling and Forecasting Group.
    2. Friederike Hendriks & Dorothe Kienhues & Rainer Bromme, 2015. "Measuring Laypeople’s Trust in Experts in a Digital Age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-20, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rosalind Pidcock & Kate Heath & Lydia Messling & Susie Wang & Anna Pirani & Sarah Connors & Adam Corner & Christopher Shaw & Melissa Gomis, 2021. "Evaluating effective public engagement: local stories from a global network of IPCC scientists," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 168(3), pages 1-22, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Petropoulos, Fotios & Apiletti, Daniele & Assimakopoulos, Vassilios & Babai, Mohamed Zied & Barrow, Devon K. & Ben Taieb, Souhaib & Bergmeir, Christoph & Bessa, Ricardo J. & Bijak, Jakub & Boylan, Joh, 2022. "Forecasting: theory and practice," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 705-871.
      • Fotios Petropoulos & Daniele Apiletti & Vassilios Assimakopoulos & Mohamed Zied Babai & Devon K. Barrow & Souhaib Ben Taieb & Christoph Bergmeir & Ricardo J. Bessa & Jakub Bijak & John E. Boylan & Jet, 2020. "Forecasting: theory and practice," Papers 2012.03854, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2022.
    2. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    3. Aljoscha Minnich & Hauke Roggenkamp & Andreas Lange, 2023. "Ambiguity Attitudes and Surprises: Experimental Evidence on Communicating New Information within a Large Population Sample," CESifo Working Paper Series 10783, CESifo.
    4. Liliana Cori & Olivia Curzio & Gabriele Donzelli & Elisa Bustaffa & Fabrizio Bianchi, 2022. "A Systematic Review of Radon Risk Perception, Awareness, and Knowledge: Risk Communication Options," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-27, August.
    5. Dominik Sondern & Guido Hertel, 2019. "Does Paying Back Pay Off? Effects of Reciprocity and Economic Outcomes on Trust Emergence in Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(6), pages 1053-1076, December.
    6. Benedikt Fecher & Freia Kuper & Birte Fähnrich & Hannah Schmid-Petri & Thomas Schildhauer & Peter Weingart & Holger Wormer, 2023. "Balancing interests between freedom and censorship: Organizational strategies for quality assurance in science communication," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 1-14.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:4:p:849-882 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Galvao, Ana Beatriz & Mitchell, James & Runge, Johnny, 2019. "Communicating Data Uncertainty: Experimental Evidence for U.K. GDP," EMF Research Papers 30, Economic Modelling and Forecasting Group.
    9. repec:jdm:journl:v:17:y:2022:i:4:p:849-882 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Ana Beatriz Galvão & James Mitchell, 2023. "Real‐Time Perceptions of Historical GDP Data Uncertainty," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 85(3), pages 457-481, June.
    11. Carol Nash, 2021. "Challenges to Learners in Interpreting Self as Other, Post COVID-19," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-24, November.
    12. Bholat, David & Broughton, Nida & Ter Meer, Janna & Walczak, Eryk, 2019. "Enhancing central bank communications using simple and relatable information," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 1-15.
    13. Galvao, Ana Beatriz & Mitchell, James, 2019. "Measuring Data Uncertainty : An Application using the Bank of England’s “Fan Charts” for Historical GDP Growth," EMF Research Papers 24, Economic Modelling and Forecasting Group.
    14. Robin Gregory & Theresa Satterfield & David R. Boyd, 2020. "People, Pipelines, and Probabilities: Clarifying Significance and Uncertainty in Environmental Impact Assessments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 218-226, February.
    15. Justin Sulik & Ophelia Deroy & Guillaume Dezecache & Martha Newson & Yi Zhao & Marwa El Zein & Bahar Tunçgenç, 2021. "Facing the pandemic with trust in science," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.
    16. Niklas Simon, 2020. "Investigating Ethos and Pathos in Scientific Truth Claims in Public Discourse," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 129-140.
    17. Teigen, Karl Halvor & Juanchich, Marie & Løhre, Erik, 2022. "What is a “likely” amount? Representative (modal) values are considered likely even when their probabilities are low," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    18. Lukas Gierth & Rainer Bromme, 2020. "Beware of vested interests: Epistemic vigilance improves reasoning about scientific evidence (for some people)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-18, April.
    19. Hershkovitz, Arnon & Hayat, Zack, 2020. "The role of tie strength in assessing credibility of scientific content on facebook," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    20. Schils, René L.M. & van Voorn, George A.K. & Grassini, Patricio & van Ittersum, Martin K., 2022. "Uncertainty is more than a number or colour: Involving experts in uncertainty assessments of yield gaps," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    21. Anne Reif & Tim Kneisel & Markus Schäfer & Monika Taddicken, 2020. "Why Are Scientific Experts Perceived as Trustworthy? Emotional Assessment within TV and YouTube Videos," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 191-205.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:meanco:v:8:y:2020:i:2:p:401-412. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.