Dataset Information

Effects of communicating uncertainty descriptions in hazard identification, risk characterization, and risk protection.

ABSTRACT: Uncertainty is a crucial issue for any risk assessment. Consequently, it also poses crucial challenges for risk communications. Many guidebooks advise reporting uncertainties in risk assessments, expecting that the audience will appreciate this disclosure. However, the empirical evidence about the effects of uncertainty reporting is sparse and inconclusive. Therefore, based on examples of potential health risks of electromagnetic fields (EMF), three experiments were conducted analysing the effects of communicating uncertainties separately for hazard identification, risk characterisation and risk protection. The setups aimed to explore how reporting and how explaining of uncertainty affects dependent variables such as risk perception, perceived competence of the risk assessors, and trust in risk management. Each of the three experiments used a 2x2 design with a first factor presenting uncertainty descriptions (as used in public controversies on EMF related health effects) or describing a certainty conditions; and a second factor explaining the causes of uncertainties (by pointing at knowledge gaps) or not explaining them. The study results indicate that qualitative uncertainty descriptions regarding hazard identification reduce the confidence in the professional competencies of the assessors. In contrast, a quantitative uncertainty description in risk characterisation-regarding the magnitude of the risk-does not affect any of the dependent variables. Concerning risk protection, trust in exposure limit values is not affected by qualitative uncertainty information. However, the qualitative description of uncertainty regarding the adequacy of protection amplifies fears. Furthermore, explaining this uncertainty results in lower text understandability.

SUBMITTER: Wiedemann P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8277037 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:In an effort to mitigate anthropogenic effects on the global climate system, industrialised countries are required to quantify and report, for various economic sectors, the annual emissions of greenhouse gases from their several sources and the absorption of the same in different sinks. These estimates are uncertain, and this uncertainty must be communicated effectively, if government bodies, research scientists or members of the public are to draw sound conclusions. Our interest is in communicating the uncertainty in estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture to those who might directly use the results from the inventory. We tested six methods of communication. These were: a verbal scale using the IPCC calibrated phrases such as 'likely' and 'very unlikely'; probabilities that emissions are within a defined range of values; confidence intervals for the expected value; histograms; box plots; and shaded arrays that depict the probability density of the uncertain quantity. In a formal trial we used these methods to communicate uncertainty about four specific inferences about greenhouse gas emissions in the UK. Sixty four individuals who use results from the greenhouse gas inventory professionally participated in the trial, and we tested how effectively the uncertainty about these inferences was communicated by means of a questionnaire. Our results showed differences in the efficacy of the methods of communication, and interactions with the nature of the target audience. We found that, although the verbal scale was thought to be a good method of communication it did not convey enough information and was open to misinterpretation. Shaded arrays were similarly criticised for being open to misinterpretation, but proved to give the best impression of uncertainty when participants were asked to interpret results from the greenhouse gas inventory. Box plots were most favoured by our participants largely because they were particularly favoured by those who worked in research or had a stronger mathematical background. We propose a combination of methods should be used to convey uncertainty in emissions and that this combination should be tailored to the professional group.

Project description:BackgroundCommunicating scientific uncertainty about public health threats such as COVID-19 is an ethically desirable task endorsed by expert guidelines on crisis communication. However, the communication of scientific uncertainty is challenging because of its potential to promote ambiguity aversion-a well-described syndrome of negative psychological responses consisting of heightened risk perceptions, emotional distress, and decision avoidance. Communication strategies that can inform the public about scientific uncertainty while mitigating ambiguity aversion are a critical unmet need.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate whether an "uncertainty-normalizing" communication strategy-aimed at reinforcing the expected nature of scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic-can reduce ambiguity aversion, and to compare its effectiveness to conventional public communication strategies aimed at promoting hope and prosocial values.MethodsIn an online factorial experiment conducted from May to June 2020, a national sample of 1497 US adults read one of five versions of an informational message describing the nature, transmission, prevention, and treatment of COVID-19; the versions varied in level of expressed scientific uncertainty and supplemental focus (ie, uncertainty-normalizing, hope-promoting, and prosocial). Participants then completed measures of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral manifestations of ambiguity aversion (ie, perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19, COVID-19 worry, and intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors and vaccination). Analyses assessed (1) the extent to which communicating uncertainty produced ambiguity-averse psychological responses; (2) the comparative effectiveness of uncertainty-normalizing, hope-promoting, and prosocial communication strategies in reducing ambiguity-averse responses; and (3) potential moderators of the effects of alternative uncertainty communication strategies.ResultsThe communication of scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic increased perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19 and worry about COVID-19, consistent with ambiguity aversion. However, it did not affect intentions for risk-reducing behaviors or vaccination. The uncertainty-normalizing strategy reduced these aversive effects of communicating scientific uncertainty, resulting in levels of both perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19 and worry about COVID-19 that did not differ from the control message that did not communicate uncertainty. In contrast, the hope-promoting and prosocial strategies did not decrease ambiguity-averse responses to scientific uncertainty. Age and political affiliation, respectively, moderated the effects of uncertainty communication strategies on intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors and worry about COVID-19.ConclusionsCommunicating scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic produces ambiguity-averse cognitive and emotional, but not behavioral, responses among the general public, and an uncertainty-normalizing communication strategy reduces these responses. Normalizing uncertainty may be an effective strategy for mitigating ambiguity aversion in crisis communication efforts. More research is needed to test uncertainty-normalizing communication strategies and to elucidate the factors that moderate their effectiveness.

Project description:Cardiovascular disease remains a significant global health concern, yet the cardiotoxic effects of environmental chemicals are largely unexplored. Human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes (iPSC-Cardiomyocytes) are well-established as valuable high-throughput cardiotoxicity testing model based on the analysis of various beating parameters; however, additional adverse effects that may not be directly related to ion channel activity are difficult to ascertain from traditional assays. Transcriptomic data may provide a more comprehensive assessment for additional molecular responses and serve as a basis for dose-response analysis. We hypothesized that transcriptomic data and functional phenotypic measurements in iPSC-Cardiomyocytes could be used to effectively screen for both hazard and risk associated with chemical exposures. To test this hypothesis, we performed concentration-response analysis of 464 chemicals from 12 diverse chemical classes. Functional effects (beat frequency, QT-prolongation, and asystole) and cytotoxicity were measured. In addition, whole transcriptome RNA-seq was used to investigate global gene expression profiles. Points of departure (PODs) were derived from both phenotypic endpoints and transcriptomic data. Margin of safety (MOS) for drugs and margin of exposure (MOE) for non-drug chemicals were calculated using PODs and the exposure estimates. The phenotypic assays revealed that a varying proportion (10% to 44%) of chemicals in each class had effects on iPSC-Cardiomyocytes; positive chronotrope was the most sensitive phenotype. Overall, 244 (53%) chemicals were active in at least one functional phenotype. As expected, drugs with known adverse effects on the heart were most active. Transcriptomic data showed 69 (15%) had significant effects on the biological pathways, the pathways that were significantly affected by some tested compounds were highly relevant to cardiomyocyte function. Specifically, the enriched pathways aligned well with key characteristics of known cardiovascular toxicants, with mitochondrial dysfunction being the most affected key characteristic. Using exposure and hazard (transcriptomic and phenotypic PODs from this study), we derived MOS and MOE and found that drugs tend to have lower MOS than MOE for the environmental chemicals. Thirteen and 10 drugs had MOS < 1 using phenotypic and transcriptomic data, respectively, suggesting that further investigation may be needed for these substances to test for potential cardiovascular risk. Overall, our findings demonstrate how the integrative use of in vitro transcriptomic data and phenotypic assays in iPSC-Cardiomyocytes not only offers a unique and complementary approach for hazard and risk prioritization, but also offers comprehensive mechanistic support for in vitro test results.

Dataset Information

Effects of communicating uncertainty descriptions in hazard identification, risk characterization, and risk protection.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets