Chapter 4 Communicating Uncertainty

      Public health and the science on which it is based are continuously evolving and always involve some level of uncertainty. This uncertainty is good as it creates room for advances in understanding and self-correction. As such, public health communications should reflect these norms of uncertainty and self-correction (Jamieson 2017). Communicating uncertainty not only presents a more accurate frame for public health information, but also primes audiences to accept updated information. Guidelines 10 and 11 provide methods of effectively communicating uncertainty.

Guideline 10: Be Reasonably Transparent

      When communicating to the public, balancing transparency about uncertainty while projecting confidence is difficult. Explicit transparency regarding uncertainty increases credibility, but ill-placed transparency conveys incompetency and insignificance (National Academies of Sciences 2017; Schapira et al. 2008; Ferrari 2017). Transparency focused on the processes of obtaining knowledge, reaching conclusions, and reducing uncertainty rather than the information or recommendations themselves represents an appropriate balance (National Academies of Sciences 2017; National Cancer Institute 2011). This so-called “reasoned transparency” is most effective when the needs and culture of an audience inform communications (Hodson et al. 2023). When information or recommendations change, avoid simply replacing old information with new information. Instead, explain past reasoning based on the old data, why new data and recommendations are needed, and how new data will change existing recommendations (Hodson et al. 2023). This method of reasoned transparency ensures audiences understand how evidence-based decisions are made and fosters trust in the process of updating recommendations. The District of Columbia Health wastewater surveillance webpage demonstrates reasoned transparency by clearly and explicitly stating the limitations of using such data to inform public health recommendations (D. Health n.d.).

\(~\)

Figure 5.1: Example of reasoned transparency.

Guideline 11: Create an Expectation of Change

      Along with reasoned transparency, fostering an expectation of change facilitates audience acceptance of evolving data and guidance. As discussed above, audiences rely on heuristics (mental shortcuts) to process new information. One such heuristic is expectancy, the degree to which new information conforms to ideas of known information (Ault et al. 2017). This heuristic is violated when new information is presented as incongruent with previous expectations. However, communicators can shift the focus of expectations away from the information itself and toward the process of generating information and create an expectation of change (Hodson et al. 2023). Consider the following example:

The guidance presented here is based on the best available evidence. These recommendations may change as we collect more information and better understand how to keep our community healthy.

When information changes and audiences expect that change, the expectation heuristic is met, and the information is accepted. This effect can be strengthened if change is framed positively as a strength and a goal; “Change is not a divergence from the plan, change is the plan” (Hodson et al. 2023).

References

Ault, Michael K., Alisha M. Ness, William D. Taylor, Genevieve Johnson, Shane Connelly, Matthew L. Jensen, and Norah E. Dunbar. 2017. “Ideological Lens Matters: Credibility Heuristics, Pre-Existing Attitudes, and Reactions to Messages on Ideological Websites.” Computers in Human Behavior 68 (March): 315–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.053.

Ferrari, Matteo. 2017. “A Comparative Study of Communication about Food Safety Before, During, and After the "Mad Cow" Crisis.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication, 1st ed., 133–40. New York: Oxford University Press.

Health, DC. n.d. “Wastewater Surveillance. DC Health.” Accessed July 9, 2024. https://dchealth.dc.gov/service/wastewater-surveillance.

Hodson, Jaigris, Darren Reid, George Veletsianos, Shandell Houlden, and Christiani Thompson. 2023. “Heuristic Responses to Pandemic Uncertainty: Practicable Communication Strategies of ‘Reasoned Transparency’ to Aid Public Reception of Changing Science.” Public Understanding of Science 32 (4): 428–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221135425.

Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. 2017. “The Need for a Science of Science Communication: Communicating Science’s Values and Norms.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication, 1st ed., 15–24. New York: Oxford University Press.

National Academies of Sciences, {and} Medicine, Engineering. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, D.C., UNITED STATES: National Academies Press.

National Cancer Institute. 2011. “Making Data Talk: A Workbook.” National Cancer Institute.

Schapira, Marilyn M., Kathlyn E. Fletcher, Mary Ann Gilligan, Toni K. King, Purushottam W. Laud, B. Alexendra Matthews, Joan M. Neuner, and Elisabeth Hayes. 2008. “A Framework for Health Numeracy: How Patients Use Quantitative Skills in Health Care.” Journal of Health Communication 13 (5): 501–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730802202169.