Dimensions of uncertainty communication: What is conveyed by verbal terms and numeric ranges

The paper reviews two strands of research on communication of uncertainty that usually have been investigated separately: (1) Probabilities attached to specific outcomes, and (2) Range judgments. Probabilities are sometimes expressed by verbal phrases ("rain is likely") and at other times in a numeric format ("70% chance of rain"), whereas range judgments describe the potential amounts expected ("1-4 mm of rain"). Examination of previous research shows that both descriptions convey, in addition to the strength of expectations, pragmatic information about the communicative situation. For instance, so-called verbal probability expressions (VPE), as likely, unlikely, a chance, or not certain give some, albeit vague, probabilistic information, but carry in addition an implicit message about the sources of uncertainty, the outcome's valence and severity, along with information about the speakers' attitudes and their communicative intentions. VPEs are directional by drawing attention either to an outcome's occurrence ("it is possible") or to its non-occurrence ("it is doubtful"). In this sense they may be more informative than numbers. Uncertainties about outcomes in a distribution (continuous quantities) are alternatively expressed as interval estimates. The width of such intervals can function as a cue to credibility and expertise. Incomplete, one-sided intervals, where only one boundary is stated, imply directionality. "More than 100 people" suggests a crowd, while "less than 200" implies a shortfall. As with VPEs, directionally positive intervals are more frequent, and perhaps more neutral than negative ones. To convey expectancies and uncertainty in a balanced way, communicators may have to alternate between complementary frames.

Media use and trust during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from eight cross-sectional surveys in Sweden

BACKGROUND

While a lot has been written about Sweden's COVID-19 control strategy, less is known about Swedish residents' media use during the pandemic and trust in and perceived agreement among key stakeholders commenting in the media.

METHODS

Eight online, nationwide surveys were fielded between March and August 2020, during the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic in Sweden, with 8146 responses. Questions were asked on media usage, perceived tone of media, trust in key pandemic stakeholder groups commenting in the media (politicians, journalists, government officials, doctors/healthcare professionals and researchers) and perceived agreement among these key stakeholders about how the pandemic was handled in Sweden.

RESULTS

Using five or more information sources was associated with increased perceived alarmism in the media. Women and those with tertiary education were more likely to trust key pandemic actors. Trust in doctors/healthcare professionals and researchers remained high over the course of the study, trust in politicians and journalists was relatively low throughout the study period, with a slight increase in April 2020. Trust in key stakeholders was strongly associated with perceived agreement among the key stakeholders.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that trust in stakeholders was strongly associated with perceived consistency of messages from those stakeholders. The inverse also holds: perceived conflicting messages among stakeholders was associated with low trust in them. Taken together, this could point to the importance of building trust before a crisis. Trust-building efforts could be targeted to men and those with lower educational attainment, as they had lower trust in key stakeholders.