Research shows that certain verbal expressions used in climatology can influence public perception of risk, trust and preparedness for climate impacts.
Climatology and the challenge of communicating risk clearly
Climate misinformation often exploits uncertainty and subtle nuances of language to cast doubt on climatology and fuel scepticism about climate change.
Research from the University of Essex suggests that certain negative expressions used by scientists to describe probability may unintentionally increase doubt and weaken trust in scientific consensus. By contrast, more positively framed wording may help people develop clearer and more proportionate perceptions of risk.
The study argues that some negative verbal expressions used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to communicate levels of risk can lead audiences to believe that scientific statements are exaggerated or insufficiently supported by data and evidence.
The study on public perception of climatology language
Established in 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provides policymakers with regular and impartial scientific assessments on climate change, its implications and potential future risks.
The study involved more than 4,000 people living in the United Kingdom. It found that the language used by the IPCC may lead members of the public to assume that scientists disagree with one another or that projections are extreme or implausible. The research was published in Nature Climate Change.
How wording influences public perception
The IPCC has standardised guidelines for communicating probability in scientific assessments. These guidelines link specific probability terms, also known as verbal probabilities, to defined likelihood ranges.
Like many international organisations, the IPCC uses negative verbal expressions to describe lower levels of probability. For example, the term “unlikely” is used for a probability of up to 33%.
Professor Marie Juanchich from the Department of Psychology at the University of Essex found that certain negative verbal expressions can fuel scepticism, leading people to believe that climatology experts are divided, even when they are not. Juanchich observed that people tend to use expressions such as “unlikely” in their everyday conversations when they doubt the reliability of statements. In fact, participants in the study associated negative terms with extreme predictions or claims not supported by evidence.
In simple terms, there is a difference between saying, “We consider it unlikely that a flood will occur,” when the risk has been assessed as low, and stating, “There is a small chance that a flood will occur.” In the second case, listeners or readers are more inclined to believe the statement and more likely to prepare for the possibility of a flood.
In a computer simulation, people who were told that a landslide was “unlikely” showed less willingness to evacuate the area compared to those who were told that there was “a small probability” of the same landslide risk.
Supporting accurate climate information
Another reason to avoid negative expressions is that events considered low probability can still have significant impacts. A 20% probability of extreme rainfall, for example, cannot in any way be ignored by a community. For this reason, it is essential to provide scientific information in a way that allows society to fully understand the risks and dangers involved.
“We must come together to address climate change, despite political divisions and growing populism currently slowing down efforts to reduce CO2. There is no Planet B,” Marie Juanchich told Phys.org.
Read the study published in Nature Climate Change.
