Uncertainty communication

Lens adapted to this topic: Evidence-based communication guidance

Official and research-based guidance generally treats transparent uncertainty communication as necessary for credible, informed decisions. It recommends aligning communication with the assessment, specifying the outcome or quantity at issue, explaining assumptions and information gaps, and adapting the presentation to the audience. In emergencies, provisional advice and clear acknowledgment of changing evidence are presented as compatible with maintaining trust.

• EFSA guidance recommends matching uncertainty communication to the assessment, linking it to a particular event, outcome, or quantity, and stating relevant conditions or assumptions.
• Communication should be tailored to audience knowledge and sensitivities, while contextualising uncertainty in relation to risks, decisions, and possible future information.
• WHO guidance presents candid communication of uncertainty as important for issuing appropriate provisional advice while maintaining credibility during emergencies.
• Uncertainty communication can include both numerical and qualitative expressions, but guidance stresses consistency between the assessment and the language used to describe it.
• Research indicates that communicating uncertainty need not automatically undermine trust, challenging the assumption that audiences always prefer confident statements.

Lens adapted to this topic: Critical and interpretive perspective

Critical analyses question whether formal uncertainty systems reliably communicate what assessors intend. They emphasise that bounded verbal probabilities may be interpreted inconsistently, specialised calibrated language can hinder readability, and institutional wording may reflect negotiation or diplomacy as well as technical evidence. This perspective focuses on comprehension, power, context, and how communication formats shape public and policy interpretation.

• Mandel, Wallsten, and Budescu argue that numerically bounded linguistic probability schemes are unlikely to communicate uncertainty effectively, indicating that apparent precision may not ensure shared interpretation.
• Analysis of IPCC practice describes calibrated language as technically specialised and reports readability challenges for audiences outside the assessment community.
• The IPCC analysis also characterises uncertainty language as potentially functioning as a diplomatic tool during report-adoption negotiations, not solely as a neutral technical label.
• Climate-risk communication analysis highlights persistent difficulty in connecting scientific uncertainty, including model and deep uncertainty, to decisions across differing social and epistemological contexts.
• This perspective therefore favours testing how audiences understand specific formats rather than assuming that standardisation, more numbers, or more disclosure automatically improves communication.