Topic
Laymen adequate communication of scientific uncertainties in the field of EMF

Start
01.11.2008

End
31.01.2010

Project Management
IKU GmbH and Prof. P.M. Wiedemann

Objective
The objective of this research project was to identify basic requirements and to develop strategies for a laymen adequate communication of scientific uncertainties concerning the field of low- and high-frequency electromagnetic fields.

The project had to analyze advantages and disadvantages as well as probable consequences of different possible strategies of risk communication (inter alia already in practise) and to give recommendations for the communication. How to communicate the available evidence for EMF risk assessment including the remaining uncertainties without increasing concerns and decreasing confidence in science respectively in the sender of information was and is the key issue of the project.

The following detailed objectives were addressed:

• Development of a concept for communicating uncertainties based on a typology and a detailed description of different formats of uncertainties.
• Determination of the information needs and the appropriate information strategies concerning the laymen adequate communication of scientific uncertainties.
• Verification through psychological experiments of the effects of different text building blocks used when communicating scientific uncertainties.
• Development of a communication strategy concerning scientific uncertainties.

Results
To date little is known about the effects of communicating uncertainties concerning the risk assessment of electromagnetic fields; in addition, the available evidence is contradictory. Experts‘ practical knowledge and the results of evidence-based research on risk communication are inconsistent. The majority of experts interviewed are in favour of reporting uncertainties. They assume that it strengthens the sender’s credibility and the confidence in his statement. The experimental results indicate that information and communication about uncertainties depends on the type of uncertainty discussed. The effects differ depending on whether the existence of a risk, its size or the adopted measures to protect against adverse health effects is concerned.

The main results about uncertainties are:

Effects of information about uncertainties

Information about uncertainties concerning the existence of risks is perceived as lack of competence on the part of the risk assessors.

Information about uncertainties concerning the magnitude of a risk has no effect.

Information about uncertainties concerning the protection measures against adverse health effects reduces the comprehensibility of the text and tends to increase fears.

Effects of explanations

Explanations of uncertainties concerning the existence of a risk reduce the perceived unambiguousness of the information. Explanations of uncertainties concerning the adopted measures to protect against adverse health effects reduce the comprehensibility of the text.

Interaction of explanations and information about uncertainties

Explaining uncertainties concerning the existence of risks acts fear reducing.

These inconsistent results of the interviews and the experimental research can be integrated by the means of Petty’s and Cacioppo’s Elaboration Likelihood theory. Here, the ideal is the „informed citizen“ who is motivated and able to adequately process and understand information about the uncertainties of a risk. Because of his information processing abilities he chooses the so-called “central path” of information processing and , though, can achieve a permanent attitude change with this ability.

The experimental findings on the other hand indicate that due to lack of motivation and/or ability the “peripheral path” of information processing is more frequently used. This means that more attention is paid to clues, stimuli, etc. than to the actual information. A new clue or stimulus can lead to a new attitude or opinion.

Concerning the “central path” of information processing: If you communicate uncertainty information should be provided about the size of the uncertainties, why the uncertainties exist and why information about uncertainties is important. You should also establish an equal relation between informing about uncertainty and certainty to enable an informed assessment. The information about the existence of limit values should include scientific justifications. Measures to protect against adverse health effects (i.e. limit values) and precautionary measures should be described.

Rules of thumb for the “peripheral path” of information processing: What seems complicated is more often perceived as risky and false; what seems straightforward is perceived as less risky and more likely to be true. Therefore, communication about uncertainties is risky. If you communicate uncertainties the information has to be combined with information that strengthens the belief in the risk assessor’s competence and gives a sense of security and reliability regarding precautionary measures.

The results are described in detail in a final report which is available as PDF-file (1.954 KB).

The interim reports are available at BfS:

Interim report 1:

• Psychological background of EMF-communication,
• Typology of uncertainty for risk
• Analysis of descriptions of uncertainty from other research projects,
• Review of literature

Interim report 2:

• The result of the examination of comprehensibility of texts about risks and uncertainties
• The needs for information raised from population, multiplicators and stakeholders.

Interim report 3:

• Analysis of strategies for communication of uncertainties in the area of EMF

Interim report 4:

• Results of the expert hearing to discuss how scientific uncertainties in different subject areas can be communicated
• Similarities and differences and the transferability of communication strategies.

Interim report 5:

• Result of an experimental study based on a questioning, which investigated the impact of text modules containing and including/not including uncertainties on students.

Conclusion
Communication about uncertainties should follow the principles of rational communication. This means it should be held in a sensible discourse that implements the principles of fairness, openness and competence.

The following conditions are fundamental:

• Communication about uncertainties has to account for both paths of information processing – the central and the peripheral – because depending on the path the same features of communication of uncertainties can have different effects.
• All in all risk communication has to put more emphasis on those that can only be reached via the peripheral path of information processing because they are more frequent.
• Furthermore care must be taken which type of uncertainties should be communicated – uncertainties concerning the existence of a risk, the magnitude of a risk or the adequacy of the adopted measures to protect against adverse health effects.