Table 5.
Indications of the audiences’ perceived understanding of different expressions of uncertainty and their preferences among different formats of similar statements
| Entry | Informed | Technical | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualitative descriptions of sources and/or direction of uncertainty | |||
| Focus group | The whole group found the uncertainty table confusing and misinterpreted the +/− signs as cancelling each other out | – | Two out of nine of the technical group participants described the +/− table as ‘incomprehensible’ |
| Qualitative expressions of probability | |||
| Focus group | Two out of seven in the public group preferred the qualitative statement | Three out of seven in the policy group and zero out of five in the NGO group preferred the qualitative statement | Six out of seven in the industry and four out of nine in the technical groups preferred the qualitative statement |
| Online survey | 35% of the public/media group ranked the qualitative statement most helpful for understanding the risk | 47% of the policy/NGO group ranked the qualitative statement most helpful for understanding the risk | 46% of the industry, 39% of the risk assessors and 41% of scientist/academic groups ranked the qualitative statement most helpful for understanding the risk |
| A precise probability with hedging word (‘about’) | |||
| Focus group | Five out of seven of the public group preferred the quantitative probability | Four out of five in the NGO and three out of seven in the policy groups preferred the quantitative probability | Four out of nine in the technical group but only one out of eight in industry groups |
| Online survey | 45% of the public/media group ranked the quantitative probability most helpful for understanding the risk | 37% of the policy/NGO group ranked the quantitative probability most helpful for understanding the risk | 35% of the industry, 38% of the risk assessor, and 35% of the scientist/academic groups ranked the quantitative probability most helpful for understanding the risk |
| An approximate probability (range) | |||
| Focus group | None of the public group preferred the approximate probability using ranges | One out of five in the NGO and one out of seven in the political groups preferred the approximate probability using ranges | One out of eight in the industry and one out of 10 in the technical groups preferred the approximate probability using ranges |