JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Communicating scientific uncertainty about public health threats such as COVID-19 is an ethically desirable task endorsed by expert guidelines on crisis communication. However, the communication of scientific uncertainty is challenging because of its potential to promote “ambiguity aversion”—a well-described syndrome of negative psychological responses consisting of heightened risk perceptions, emotional distress, and decision avoidance. Communication strategies that can inform the public about scientific uncertainty while mitigating ambiguity aversion are a critical unmet need.

Objective:

To evaluate whether an “uncertainty-normalizing” communication strategy—aimed at reinforcing the expected nature of scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic—can reduce ambiguity aversion, and to compare its effectiveness to conventional public communication strategies aimed at promoting hope and pro-social values.

Methods:

In an online factorial experiment conducted from May-June 2020, a national sample of 1497 US adults read one of five versions of an informational message describing the nature, transmission, prevention, and treatment of COVID-19, but varying in level of expressed scientific uncertainty and supplemental focus (uncertainty-normalizing, hope-promoting, pro-social). Participants then completed measures of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral manifestations of ambiguity aversion (perceived likelihood of COVID-19, COVID-19 worry, and intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors and vaccination). Analyses assessed 1) the extent to which communicating uncertainty produced ambiguity-averse psychological responses; 2) the comparative effectiveness of uncertainty-normalizing, hope-promoting, and pro-social communication strategies in reducing ambiguity-averse responses; and 3) potential moderators of the effects of alternative uncertainty communication strategies.

Results:

The communication of scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic increased perceived likelihood and worry about COVID-19, consistent with ambiguity aversion, but did not affect intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors or vaccination. The uncertainty-normalizing strategy, but not the hope-promoting or pro-social strategies, reduced these cognitive and emotional manifestations of ambiguity aversion; when scientific uncertainty was communicated along with uncertainty-normalizing language, levels of COVID-19 risk perceptions and worry did not differ from the control message that did not communicate uncertainty. Age and political affiliation, respectively, moderated the effects of uncertainty communication strategy on intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors and worry about COVID-19.

Conclusions:

Communicating scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic produces ambiguity-averse cognitive and emotional, but not behavioral, responses among the general public, and an uncertainty-normalizing communication strategy reduces these responses. Normalizing uncertainty may be an effective strategy for mitigating ambiguity aversion in crisis communication efforts. More research is needed to test uncertainty-normalizing communication strategies, and to elucidate the factors that moderate their effectiveness.