Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

The interpretation of IPCC probabilistic statements around the world

Nature Climate Change volume 4, pages 508–512 (2014)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses verbal descriptions of uncertainty (for example, Unlikely) to convey imprecision in its forecasts and conclusions. Previous studies showed that the American public misinterprets these probabilistic statements. We report results from a multi-national study involving 25 samples in 24 countries and 17 languages. As predicted, laypeople interpret IPCC statements as conveying probabilities closer to 50% than intended by the IPCC authors. We show that an alternative presentation format supplementing the verbal terms with numerical ranges increases the correspondence between the public’s interpretations and the IPCC guidelines, and the terms are better differentiated. These qualitative patterns are remarkably stable across all samples and languages. In fact, interpretations of the terms in various languages are more similar under the new presentation format. These results suggest changing the way the IPCC communicates uncertainty.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Distribution of the best probability estimates of the 4 terms by condition across 25 samples.
Figure 2: Cumulative distributions of rates of consistency with IPCC guidelines under the two conditions, across all 25 samples.
Figure 3: Consistency rates with IPCC guidelines in the two conditions, by sample.
Figure 4: The two-dimensional representation of the 4 target terms in the 25 samples in the Translation condition (stress = 0.009; left panel) and the VN condition (stress = 0.006; right panel).

References

  1. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Scientific achievements less prominent than a decade ago: Public praise science; Scientists fault public, media. (2009) http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/528.pdf

  2. Budescu, D. V. & Wallsten, T. S. in Judgmental Forecasting (eds Wright, G. & Ayton, P.) Subjective estimation of precise and vague uncertainties. 63–82 (Wiley, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ha-Duong, M., Swart, R., Bernstein, L. & Petersen, R. Uncertainty management in the IPCC: agreeing to disagree. Glob. Environ. Change 17, 8–11 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Budescu, D. V., Broomell, S. B. & Por, H. H. Improving communication of uncertainty in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Psych. Sci. 20, 299–308 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Budescu, D. V., Por, H. & Broomell, S. B. Effective communication of uncertainty in the IPCC reports: A nationally representative survey. Climatic Change 113, 181–200 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wallsten, T. S. & Budescu, D. V. A review of human linguistic probability processing: general principles and empirical evidence. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 10, 43–62 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Teigen, K. H. & Brun, W. in Thinking: Psychological Perspectives on Reasoning, Judgment, and Decision Making (eds Hardman, D. & Macchi, L.) Verbal expressions of probability and uncertainty. 125–145 (Wiley, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fischer, K. & Jungermann, H. Rarely occurring headaches and rarely occurring blindness: Is rarely = rarely? The meaning of verbal frequentistic labels in specific medical contexts. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 9, 153–172 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wallsten, T. S., Fillenbaum, S. & Cox, J. A. Base rate effects on the interpretations of probability and frequency expressions. J. Memory Lang. 25, 571–587 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Weber, E. U. & Hilton, D. J. Contextual effects in the interpretations of probability words: Perceived base rate and severity of events. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percep. Perform. 16, 781–789 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fillenbaum, S., Wallsten, T. S., Cohen, B. L. & Cox, J. A. Some effects of vocabulary and communication task on the understanding and use of vague probability expressions. Am. J. Psychol. 104, 35–60 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Brun, W. & Teigen, K. H. Verbal probabilities: Ambiguous, context-dependent, or both? Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. 41, 390–414 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Erev, I. & Cohen, B. L. Verbal versus numerical probabilities: Efficiency, biases, and the preference paradox. Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. 45, 1–18 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wallsten, T. S., Budescu, D. V., Zwick, R. & Kemp, S. M. Preferences and reasons for communicating probabilistic information in numerical or verbal terms. Bull. Psychonom. Soc. 31, 135–138 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Piercey, M. D. Motivated reasoning and verbal versus numerical probability assessment: Evidence from an accounting context. Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. 108, 330–341 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Budescu, D. V., Weinberg, S. & Wallsten, T. S. Decisions based on numerically and verbally expressed uncertainties. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percep. Perform. 14, 281–294 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Budescu, D. V., Karelitz, T. M. & Wallsten, T. S. Predicting the directionality of probability words from their membership functions. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 16, 159–180 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Zwick, R. & Wallsten, T. S. Combining stochastic uncertainty and linguistic inexactness: Theory and experimental evaluation of four fuzzy probability models. Int. J. Man-Machine Stud. 30, 69–111 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Beyth-Marom, R. How probable is probable? A numerical translation of verbal probability expressions. J. Forecast. 1, 257–269 (1982).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Clarke, V. A., Ruffin, C. L., Hill, D. J. & Beamen, A. L. Ratings of orally presented verbal expressions of probability by a heterogeneous sample. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 22, 638–656 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Reagan, R., Mosteller, F. & Youtz, C. Quantitative meanings of verbal probability expressions. J. Appl. Psychol. 74, 433–442 (1989).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hamm, R. M. Selection of verbal probabilities: A solution for some problems of verbal probability expression. Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. 48, 193–223 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mosteller, F. & Youtz, C. Quantifying probabilistic expressions. Stat. Sci. 5, 2–16 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Smithson, M., Budescu, D. V., Broomell, S. B. & Por, H. H. Never say ‘not’: Impact of negative wording in probability phrases on imprecise probability judgments. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 53, 1262–1270 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Witteman, C. & Renooij, S. Evaluation of a verbal–numerical probability scale. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 33, 117–131 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Witteman, C., Renooij, S. & Koele, P. M. Medicine in words and numbers: a cross-sectional survey comparing probability assessment scales. BMC Med. Inform. 7 (2007).

  27. InterAcademy Council. Climate change assessments: Review of the processes and procedures of the IPCC. (2010) http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net

  28. Heath, Y. & Gifford, R. Free-market ideology and environmental degradation: The case of belief in global climate change. Environ. Behav. 38, 48–71 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G. & Jones, R. E. Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. J. Soc. Issues 56, 425–442 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Thompson, S. C. G. & Barton, M. A. Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. J. Environ. Psychol. 14, 149–157 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bord, R. J., O’Connor, R. E. & Fisher, A. In what sense does the public need to understand global climate change? Public Underst. Sci. 9, 205–218 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Weller, J. A., Dieckmann, N. F., Tusler, M., Mertz, C. K. & Burns, W. J. et al. Development and testing of an abbreviated numeracy scale: A Rasch analysis approach. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 26, 198–212 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Leiserowitz, A., Smith, N. & Marlon, J.R. Americans’ knowledge of climate change. (Yale University, Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.)http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/ClimateChangeKnowledge2010.pdf2010).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work was supported by Grant no. 1125879 from the US National Science Foundation. The authors thank the local collaborators who translated and back translated the surveys and helped in local adjustments: W. Au (China and Hong Kong), M. Balassiano (Brazil), I. Barbopoulos (Sweden), J. Fuller (Korea), C. G. Vallejo (Chile), L. Hadar (Israel), A. Hansla (Sweden), E. Hölzl (Germany), Z. Hichy (Italy), M. Juanchich (France), A. Maydeu-Olivares (Spain), K. Nakamura (Japan), D. Őnkal (Turkey), M. Sirota (Slovakia), P. Śleboda (Poland), J. Sokolowska (Poland), G. Villejoubert (UK), C. Witteman (The Netherlands) and A. MacLean, for assistance in coordination of data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Fordham University, 441 East Fordham Road, Bronx New York 10458, USA,

    David V. Budescu & Han-Hui Por

  2. Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, 15213, USA,

    Stephen B. Broomell

  3. Research School of Psychology, Bldg 39, The Australian National University, Canberra A.C.T. 0200, Australia

    Michael Smithson

Authors
  1. David V. Budescu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Han-Hui Por
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephen B. Broomell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael Smithson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

D.V.B.: initiated project, design, data analysis, and lead writer of the paper. H-H.P.: Coordinated data collection, design, data analysis, and writing. S.B.B.: Design, data analysis, and writing. M.S.: Data analysis and writing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David V. Budescu.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Budescu, D., Por, HH., Broomell, S. et al. The interpretation of IPCC probabilistic statements around the world. Nature Clim Change 4, 508–512 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2194

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2194

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing